CHANDRASEN BATHAM Vs. M.P. GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29-03-2014 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 2262 of 2012 Chandrasen Batham Vs. M.P. Government by which appeal was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner applied for certified copy of order dated 03-01-1978 pertaining to Patwari Halka Number 55 Village Dodiapur and deposited requisite fee. On 16-02-2009 he was assured to get certified copy within 2-3 days but copy has not been provided to him ever after lapse of 11/2 months. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that department issuing certified copy is separate and has nothing to do with Tehsildar. It was further submitted that date of order given by complainant was wrong and no order was passed on 03-01-1978 so file could not be located and certified copy could not be provided and requisite fee was refunded which has been accepted by the complainant. It was further submitted that actually complainant wanted copy of order dated 01-12-1978 and when it was located complainant was provided certified copy on 20-03-2012, denying any deficiency on the part of opposite party, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum vide order dated 13-09-2010 dismissed complaint and appeal against that order was dismissed by learned State Commission by order dated 12-11-2010 but this Commission in revision petition vide order dated 10-03-2011 remanded matter to District Forum. Again District Forum by order dated 26-12-2011 allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay compensation and cost. That order was challenged before State Commission and matter was remanded back to District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 24-09-2012 dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard petitioner in person and perused record.