IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI SA No.356 of 2025 with IA 7855 of 2025 exemption for filing official translation)

(Against the order dated 08.05.2025 in Complaint No.623/2024 of the State Commission Punjab)

Ajay Sharma Appellant(s)

Versus Public Officer Regional Transport Office Respondent(s)

BEFORE*

HON’BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.), PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER For the Appellant In person Dated : 23.07.2025

ORDER (ORAL)

The main grievance in the present Appeals is that in compliance of the Section 75 to 77 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 he sought copies of the documents vide request dated 24.07.2024 and the same has not been provided to him notwithstanding the fact that he had paid ?120/- for the purpose of postal expenditure and other document fee in the form of Indian Postal Order. Section 75 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is'reproduced as under:

“Section 75 Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed,, whenever such officer is authorised by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.

Section 76 Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.

Section 77 (a) Acts, orders or notifications of the Central Government in any of its Ministries and Departments(or the Crown Representative) or of any State Government or of any Department of any State Government or Union territory Administration— (i) by the records of the Departments, certified by the head of those Departments respectively; or (ii) by any document purporting to be printed by order of any such Government; [or, as the case may be of the Crown representative;]

(b) the proceedings of Parliament or a State Legislature, by the journals of those bodies respectively, or by published Acts or abstracts, or by copies purporting to be printed by order of the Government concerned;

(c) proclamations, orders or Regulations issued by the issued by the [Her Majesty] or by the Privy Council, or by any department of Her majesty’s Government,-] President of India or the Governor of a State or the Administrator or Lieutenant Governor of a Union territory, by copies or extracts contained in the Official Gazette; [London Gazette, or purporting to be Printed by the Queen’s Printer;]

(d) the Acts of the Executive or the proceedings of the Legislature of a foreign country, by journals published by their authority, or commonly received in that country as such, or by a copy certified under the seal of the country or sovereign, or by a recognition thereof in any (some) Central Act;

(e) the proceedings of a municipal or local body in a State, by a copy of such proceedings, certified by the legal keeper thereof, or by a printed book purporting to be published by the authority of such body;

(f) public documents of any other class in a foreign country, by the original or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof, with a certificate under the seal of a Notary Public, or of an Indian Consul or diplomatic agent, that the copy is duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original, and upon proof of the character of the document according to the law of the foreign country.”

HGFEDCBA As per him, these documents ought to have been provided to him and that by depriving the same there has been gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. He also states that the documents he sought essentially pertain to bribery and corruption on