C.C. No. 32 of 2013. Case: M. Raja Manohar Vs Superintendent. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberC.C. No. 32 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Party-in-Person for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2
JudgesGopala Krishna Tamada, J. (President), Thota Ashok Kumar and S. Bhujanga Rao, Members
IssueConsumer Law
CitationII (2014) CPJ 89 (AP)
Judgement DateApril 07, 2014
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Thota Ashok Kumar, Member

  1. This complaint is filed under Section 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. 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 party No. 2 placed protest petition Before AJFCM and it was numbered as CFR Nos. 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 14.2.2011 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 Rs. 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.

  2. 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 party No. 2 returned the copy application dated 2.5.2011 to the opposite party No. 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. 6 of 2010 are not available in the Court of AJFCM.

  3. The complainant submits that he did not file the copy application for documents related to third party proceedings and moreover Rule 203(A) of A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 does not debar any one taking certified copies of documents until they are marked by the Court. Since AJFCM is not taking any decision on protest petition, the complainant filed a petition under Section 408, Cr.P.C. before the Addl. Prl. District and Sessions Judge for its transfer to any other Court. On 19.7.2012 the Court declined to transfer the protest petition and granted relief for its disposal as early as possible. Thereafter the protest petition was repeatedly adjourned till the first week of November 2012 on which date the protest petition was placed before AJFCM without the prosecution exhibits and the AJFCM passed oral instructions to the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 for their tracing the said exhibits and adjourned the case to 20.11.2012. On the said date, the complainant appeared before the Court but the opposite party No. 3 did not place the case file of protest petition and the case was again adjourned to 12.12.2012, 21.12.2012 and 25.1.2013. The complainant suspecting that the prosecution exhibits are very much available and intellectually they are not bringing them to light issued legal notices dated 24.12.2012 and 7.1.2013 to the opposite parties requesting the opposite parties to restore all the prosecution exhibits to their place in the Court of AJFCM without any harm/fudge and comply with CA No. 2767 of 2011 free of cost and claimed compensation for mental agony. The opposite parties did not reply to the legal notices.

  4. The complainant by relying upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT