RAJA MANOHAR Vs. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL COPYING SECTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint is filed U/s.17(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Superintendent Central Copying Section, District and Sessions Court, Sanga Reddy, Medak District and two others seeking direction to pay exemplary damages/compensation of Rs. 37,88,300/ - together with costs of Rs. 10,000/ -.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present case in brief are that the Station House Officer P.S. Indra Karan, Ordnance Factory Medak filed final report in FIR 06 of 2010 at SHO/PS Indra Karan, Ordnance Factory Medak Estate, Yedumailaram, Medak District before Addl Judicial First Class Magistrate Sanga Reddy (AJFCM). On 5.5.2010 assailing the final report the complainant filed protest petition under the provisions of Cr.P.C. before AJFCM concerned and the opposite party no.2 postponed it till the middle of July 2010. The complainant due to sickness did not attend the court on the date of adjournment and thereafter on 4.8.2010 the opposite party no.2 returned the protest petition as not maintainable. The complainant after compliance of the objections resubmitted protest petition. When the opposite party no.2 did not place the petition before AJFCM, the complainant lodged a complaint dated 16.8.2010 before the Prl. District Judge, Medak. Then the opposite partyno.2 placed protest petition before AJFCM and it was numbered as CFR NO.1777 and 1778 of 2010. Later both the CFRs were adjourned several times till 18.11.2010. The complainant made a complaint dated 29.11.2010 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of A.P. and Principal District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. On 14.02.2011 AJFCM directed the complainant to file documents as prosecution exhibits on 24.2.2011 and the complainant filed 272 documents in CFR No.1777 of 2010 and one document in CFR NO.1778 of 2010 as prosecution exhibits. Since repeated adjournments were given infringing his fundamental rights, the complainant had sent a copy application by paying application fees of '1/ - to the opposite party no.1 by registered post for certified copies of documents under Rule 203(A) of A.P.Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders 1990.

(3.) THE complainant simultaneously submitted an application under RTI dated 2.5.2011 to Public Information Officer/Prl. Dist. And Sessions Court and sought for the documents prayed in copy application. The opposite partyno.2 returned the copy application dated 2.5.2011 to the opposite partyno.1 on the premise that the certified copies of all exhibits in CFR NO.1777 and 1778 of 2010 are not marked as exhibits. The Public Information Officer/Prl District and Sessions Court also failed to respond to the application under RTI and the complainant got issued notice dated 9.8.2011. The opposite parties gave reply to it informing the complainant that the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer in FIR No.06 of 2010 are not available in the court of AJFCM.