Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Jagmohan Sharma Vs. DCP South East District | Case No. 1912/1111/2020/08/3540-41 | Dated: 30-03-21

 
In the court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-02
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1912/1111/2020/08/3540-41 Dated: 30-03-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Jagmohan Sharma,
68, Hari Nagar, Aashram, 
New Delhi -110014 ………Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
(South East District),
Pocket-C, Sarita Vihar, 
New Delhi-110076 ………..Respondent 


Date of Hearing : 30.03.2021

Present: Sh. Jagmohan Sharma, complainant.

Sh. Braham Prakash, S.I. P.S. Sunlight Colony on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

  The complainant, Sh. Jagmohan Sharma, a person with 75% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 12.08.2020  alleged that his brother  Pawan and his wife Mrs. Kusum  are harassing him by abusing, misbehaving, manhandling and giving him threats to kill.  He had made several complaints to police on the issue but, the local police are not taking appropriate actions against them.   

2. The matter was taken up with the Dy. Commissioner of Police (South East District)  vide  letter dated 19.08.2020 for submission of their comments. A reply was received from Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South  East District, New Delhi on 05.02.2021 vide which it was informed that an enquiry into the matter was got conducted through ACP/Lajpat Nagar/SED  and it was found that the complainant and the alleged are brothers and reside in the same building at H.No. 68, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi. The allegations levelled in the complaint could not be substantiated during enquiry.  No cognizable offence is made out.  However, it is revealed that the complainant was already externed (Delhi out) for one year in 2016 u/s 47 DP Act.  Currently,  no police action is required.

3. The complainant vide his rejoinder dated 23.02.2021 (received through e-mail) inter-alia submitted that above Externment Order dated 22.11.2016 passed by Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, Addl. DCP (South East) was  set aside by the Delhi High Court’s Order dated 19.07.2017.  Because of bogus complaints/FIR made by his younger brother and his wife, he was externed for one year by Delhi Police and due to this trauma and mental agony he was paralysed and became a person with locomotor disability.   

4. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 30.03.2021.  The complainant was present alongwith Sh. Brham Prakash, Division Officer/S.I. , P.S. Sunlight Colony. 

5. Both the parties submitted their facts.    It is learnt that though it is basically a family feud, but the same caused immense tension among the family members due to which the complainant had a cerebral stroke and  became a person with disability permanently.  

6. After due deliberations and discussion, the Court recommends the following:-

(i) Sub Inspector, Sh. Brham Prakash, P.S. Sunlight Colony, who is also the Division Officer of the area where the complainant resides i.e. at  69, Hari Nagar, Aashram, New Delhi is directed to try and amicably resolve the issue. 

(ii) Sh. Pawan Sharma and his wife Mrs. Kusum need to be advised properly not to threaten and resort to physical manhandling of the complainant and his family members including his 78 years old mother.

(iii) In case of any further complaints received from complainant, action as per law should be initiated against them and their accomplishers and with due sections of CrPC,  FIR be lodged against anyone for taking the law into own hands or try to intimidate or manhandle the complainant or anyone else. 

(iv) At the end complainant is also advised to resort to mind calming measures like yoga to gain physical strength and peace of mind, loss of which has caused him physical as well as mental illness with locomotor disability and brain haemorrhage etc.

7. Accordingly, the case is disposed of. 

8. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 30th day of March, 2021.      


(Ranjan Mukherjee )
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

 

 


Friday, March 26, 2021

Neetu Singh Vs. The DCP Shahdara District | Case No. 1934 /1111/2020/09/3524-26 | Dated: 26-03-21

 
In the court of  the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1934 /1111/2020/09/3524-26 Dated: 26-03-21 

In the matter of:

Ms. Neetu Singh,
A-214, Jhilmil Colony,
Delhi-110095.                  
(E-mail: neettu8176@gmail.com)                                  ……Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
(Shahdara District),
Bholanath Nagar, Shalimar Park,
Delhi, 110032                         ……..Respondent 
(Impleaded on 25.03.2021)

Date of Hearing : 25.03.2021

Present: Ms. Neetu Singh, complainant.
Sh. Vijay Kumar, SHO (Vivek Vihar) and Sh. Narinder Singh, Head Constable on behalf of respondent.

ORDER

  The above complaint of Ms. Neetu Singh, a person with 65% locomotor disability was received from Member, Delhi Commission for Women vide letter No. DCW/1492/VS/2020 dated 26.08.2020.  Vide her complaint she alleged that one Mr. Mahavir Jain is continuously harassing her by giving threats to kill her as she is living in a disputed property.  She had tried to lodge an FIR against Mr. Mahavir Jain but the Police authorities were not taking any action against him and that she is not feeling safe and is afraid of her life.   She further informed that her electricity was also disconnected illegally and she is facing great difficult. So much so that she out of fear now lives somewhere else with great difficulty.

2. The matter was taken up with the Dy. Commissioner of Police (East District) vide letter dated 14.10.2020 for submission of their comments. However, a reply was received from Addl.Dy. Commissioner of Police, Shahdara District, Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Shahdara District on 14.10.2020, vide which it was informed that an enquiry into the matter was got conducted through ACP/Vivek Vihar and the disputed property at  A-14, Jhilmil, Vivek Vihar, Delhi  was visited by Inquiry Officer  and it was noticed that the alleged Mahavir Jain is claiming to be the owner of this property, while complainant Ms. Neetu Singh has been living there as a tenant for last 7-8 years.  A dispute is going on between the parties regarding non-payment of rent. Both the parties have been instructed accordingly.  The matter is civil in nature and requires no police intervention. Hence, no police action is called for.

3. The complainant vide her rejoinder dated 10.11.20 inter-alia submitted that her complaint is not about any property dispute and she had raised the issues of life threats and personal and physical harm.  She further requested to look into her grievance towards refusal to registering an FIR by Delhi Police on her complaint of receiving life threats from Mr. Mahavir Jain, which has criminal attitude.  

4. Another letter was received from Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Shahdara District, Delhi stating that the Inquiry Officer visited the complainant’s address but the same was found locked and on local enquiry it was informed that the complainant had left from there to her relative’s house. The complainant could not be contacted as she did not mention her new address in her complaint. 

5. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 25.03.2020.  

The complainant was present alongwith Sh. Vijay Kumar, SHO (Vivek Vihar)  and  Sh. Narinder Singh, Head Constable/ Beat Incharge.

6. Both the parties submitted their facts.   Complainant reiterated her written submissions and inter-alia added that being female and a person with locomotor disability she is more vulnerable. She is living a traumatic life because of such life threats.  She fears to attend her Office as she has faced some instances of being stalked.  She further stated that her house lock was forcibly broken by Mr. Mahavir Jain and his men and she has also handed over the CCTV footage in this regard to the SHO in this Court.  On this,  Court directs the respondent  that this CCTV footage may be treated as property of the complainant as Exhibit handed over during the hearing. It should be studied and necessary action be taken as per law.

7. SHO, Vivek Vihar, O/o DCP (South) gave assurance to the complainant for her safety and has shared a number of his staff  Sh. Narinder Singh, Head Constable / Area Beat Officer and directed him to be in touch with her on regular basis and in case of any eventuality she could convey her inconvenience to him.  SHO, Vivek Vihar also stated that he would also direct local staff (civil team) deputed on complainant’s route to office for keeping vigil of any stalker trying to harass her on way to office. The Court appreciates above gestures of SHO(Vivek Vihar).

8. After due deliberations and discussion, the Court recommends the following:-

(i) Court directs local police to not to interfere in the civil matter of the property issues  with respect to the building in which Ms. Neetu Singh resides and if Mr. Mahavir Jain has got any dispute in respect of this property, he is free to approach any court for resolving the same.  

(ii) With regard to safety and security of Ms. Neetu Singh, it is directed that SHO(Vivek Vihar) / local Police Station should ensure safety and security of Ms. Neetu Singh, a person with disability.  Local Police is further directed to also investigate the case as per CCTV footage handed over by the complainant during the hearing and apprehend the culprits who have breached the security of  her residence i.e. any means of breaking lock and putting another lock and chain. An ATR in this regard be submitted to this court by 05.04.2021.  

(iii) Requisite preventive measures in this particular case be adopted and taken by local police considering the complaint of Ms. Neetu  Singh. 

(iv) With regard to complainant’s grievance of disconnection of electricity meter,  the court  immediately spoke  to CTO, BSES during the hearing and  complainant  is also directed to apply for a new electricity connection  and clear all her dues. 

9. The case is disposed of. 

10. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 26th day of March, 2021.      


(Ranjan Mukherjee )
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
 
Copy to:-  The CTO, BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, BRPL, BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,  New Delhi-110019 for necessary action on Para 8(iv).
 

Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Ms. Tanu Jain Vs. DSSB | Case. No. 2084/1013/2021/01/3362-63 | Dated:16-03-21

 
In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case.No.2084/1013/2021/01/3362-63 Dated:16-03-21

In the matter of:

Ms. Tanu Jain, 
4/17 Jai Dev Park East Punjabi Bagh
NewDelhi-110026                                                       .....……Complainant                      
Versus

The Secretary  
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma
Delhi-110092                                                                 ..........Respondent                                        

ORDER
  

Ms. Tanu Jain, a person with 50% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 15.01.2021 submitted that she had applied for Post Code 02/17 (DASS, Grade-IV) in PH-OH category. She had qualified Tier 1st exam and when she appeared for Tier 2nd exam (typing/skill test) on 26.12.2020 she was given exemption by exam Incharge from appearing in skill test after checking her permanent Physically Disability (50%) Certificate No. 2467/11 dated 29th June, 2011.  In addition, she had also given an application requesting exemption from appearing in Typing Test to DSSSB.  However, she was shown as disqualified in spite of fairing well in merit list on the ground that a particular Disability Certificate was not submitted. Infact, the last candidate with disability scored 101.66 marks and her score was 109.28 marks. On enquiry from DSSSB about her disqualification, she was told to submit another certificate in a new format and when she submitted the same on 22.12.2020 (in original), DSSSB has not considered her case.  There is hardly any difference between the two.

2. The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide SCN-Cum-Hearing Notice dated 03.03.2021 and a hearing was scheduled on 15.03.2021.

3. During the hearing, complainant appeared alongwith her family members and reiterarated her written submissions.  Sh. V.P. Jha, Dy. Secretary, CC-II appeared on behalf of respondent and submitted a copy of their reply dated 12.03.2021.  Copy of the same was also  given to the complainant. 

4. Sh. V.P. Jha, Dy. Secretary, CC-II stated that for seeking exemption from skill / typing test, candidate was required to give a certificate from Medical Board attached to Special Employment Exchanges for the Persons with Disabilities (or by a Civil Surgeon where there is no such Board) stating that she is unable to type at Skill Test Centre on the date of skill test i.e. 26.12.2019, but she did not submit the same at that time. Therefore, her request for seeking exemption was rejected by the Board vide Order No. 1041 dated 08.09.2020.  

4. After deliberations and discussions with the respondent and complainant, the following are recommended:

(i) DSSSB should take cognizance of the fact that the complainant Ms. Tanu Jain qualified in the merit with 109.28 marks than the candidate with 101.66 marks,  who has been selected and treated qualified while she has been left out.  The reason,   submitted by the DSSSB is about a certificate to the effect of her disability. While the complainant did submit her disability certificate (50% and above), there were slight difference in the format otherwise there is hardly any difference.  However, the same was later submitted by the complainant.  Further, prior to the examination, the exam Incharge at the centre had taken cognizance of her disability certificate and her physical disability and duly exempted her from appearing in the typing /skill test.  Besides, application to the effect requesting exemption from appearing in skill / typing test being a permanent person with disability (above 50%) was  submitted by the complainant. 

(ii) This court is of the view that the case of the complainant be looked sympathetically and with due regard to her qualifying in the merit.  Thus, it is recommended that the candidate should be helped by DSSSB in this regard as most important aspect for a person with disability (that to a girl) is economic independence, which go a long way to grant a meaningful and positive life for the concerned person with disability. 

5. Accordingly the case is disposed off. 

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 16th day of March, 2021.      



( Ranjan Mukherjee )
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Sonu Bhola Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. | Case No.1286/1108/2019/11/3364-3366 | Dated:16/03/21

 
In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.1286/1108/2019/11/3364-3366 Dated:16/03/21

In the matter of:

Sh. Sonu Bhola, 
A-89, Street No. 8, Jagat Puri, 
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051. …………..Complainant                                                        
Versus

The Chief Executive Officer,
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.,  
Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092.                                           ...........Respondent No.1

The Manager,
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.,
F-15/2, Krishna Nagar Delhi-110051. ...........Respondent No.2

Date of hearing: 15.03.2021


Present: Sh. Sonu Bhola, Complainant  

Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Sr. Manager (Legal) and Sh. Vivek Bhatnagar, APO on behalf of respondents.

ORDER

Sh. Sonu Bhola, a person with 65% locomotor disability had filed a complaint vide e-mail dated 07.11.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act and has submitted that BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. wrongly transferred another customer's dues to his wife's name bearing CA No. 151285745. He further submitted that BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. office situated at Krishna Nagar is not disabled friendly.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide show cause notice dated 27.11.2019.  The respondent vide reply dated 13.01.2020 submitted that the dues of disconnected connection bearing CA number 350258813 registered in the name of brother of the complainant i.e. Sh. Surender Bhola was transferred to another connection registered in the name of the same consumer i.e. Sh. Surender Bhola.  The said connection was bearing CA number 100865686.  As the transferred dues were not paid, the same were transferred as per law to CA number 151285745 registered in the name of Ms. Rajni Bhola i.e. wife of the complainant.  The dues transferred were of Rs. 398832.59.  The matter was settled at Rs. 1,02626.71 on 15.03.2019.  Regarding accessibility of the office, the respondent submitted that there is a ramp at the entrance of the division office at Krishna Nagar and there is also the facility of the wheel chair on request.  There is a help desk on the ground floor to provide all the help and information.  

3. The reply of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant vide letter dated 10.02.2020 to file the rejoinder, if any.  The complainant submitted the rejoinder vide letter dated 08.08.2020 and a hearing was scheduled on 15.03.2021.

4. During the hearing, the complainant submitted the copies of e-mails dated 8th, 10th & 11th March, 2021 sent to the complainant by the BSES showing different status regarding dues pending.  The respondent submitted a copy of letter dated 15.03.2019 regarding settlement of dues.

5. After due deliberation and discussion, the following are recommended:-

(i) BSES, Yamuna Power Ltd. to clear ambiguity with respect to 5 different meters in question in this case that the Bhola family have in the names of Sh. Surender Bhola(1), Ms. Sumitra Bhola (2) and Ms. Rajni Bhola (2) and with clarify check the dues, if any, in each bill, with exact CA number, Meter number with due date and satisfy themselves first.  Once this is freezed, BSES should explain to the complainant if there are any dues with date with correct meter number and CA number so that there is no ambiguity and the things are transparent.

(ii) BSES, Yamuna Power Ltd. should have better liaison and coordination with the outsourced company/call centre which handles the SMS/information to the customers.  In the current scenario, it is seen that on 08.03.2021, there is a confirmation to complainant having zero bill and on 10.03.2021, the same customer is being asked to clear the dues and again on 11.03.2021, the dues being shown as zero. So, there is a mis-match.  BSES need to clear this ambiguity.

(iii) To ensure proper accessibility in the office of BSES, Yamuna Power Ltd., Krishna Nagar and submit the photographic evidence to this Court by 30.03.2021. 


5. The complaint was disposed of with the above recommendations.

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 16th day of March, 2021. 

 
(Ranjan Mukherjee) 
                                State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Monday, March 15, 2021

Ms. Nehal Trehan Vs. Dte of Education & Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute | Case No. 1948/1032/2020/09/3356-3358 | Dated:15-03-21

 

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundri Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi.
Phone-011-23216002-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1948/1032/2020/09/3356-3358              Dated:15-03-21


In the matter of:

Ms. Nehal Trehan,  
34/20, Second Floor,  
West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi – 110008.     ................ Complainant
(Email: nehal9250200000@gmail.com)
    
Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education, 
GNCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.               ..............…Respondent No. 1 

The Principal,
Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute,
Subroto Park, New Delhi – 110010.     ..............…Respondent No. 2
Date of Hearing: 12.03.2021

Present: Ms. Nehal Trehan, Complainant

  Sh. Pankaj Trehan, On behalf of the complainant

Dr. Sudhakar Gaikwad, Deputy Director (Education) and Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Asstt., Dte. of Education, on behalf of Respondent No. 1

Ms. Ruchita Karthikeyn & Sh. Amresh Chandra, Principals, Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute on behalf of Respondent No. 2 

ORDER

Ms. Nehal Trehan, mother of Ms. Hareena Trehan, a girl child with 80% Autism Spectrum Disorder disability complained vide e-mail dated 24.09.2020 and submitted that her daughter, a student of Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute, Subroto Park, New Delhi wherein the school authorities are not providing inclusive education as per RPwD Act, 2016. The child has been confined to segregation (Special Wing) at the school not learning much.  It was also submitted vide her e-mail dated 05.11.2020 that some of the Special Educators including the class teacher of her child seem to be working with expired certificate of registration from the RCI.  Vide another e-mail dated 16.12.2020, the complainant also submitted that the registration certificate of “Indian Air Force Educational and Cultural Society” too expired on 09.01.2019.

2. The matter was taken up with Dte. of Education vide letter dated 09.10.2020, who issued Show Cause Notice on 26.02.2021 to the school authorities with the direction to submit the reply within 3 working days.

3. Vide letter dated 03.03.2021, respondent No. 2 submitted that the child Hareena Trehan was admitted in Special Wing of AFGJI in Jan., 2018 on the request of the parent and in April, 2019, on the request of the parent, the child was shifted to Class-I of the mainstream school on trial basis.  However, after one month the parent again requested to shift the child back to Special Wing for better care and same was agreed.  In September, 2019, it was suggested by the school to shift the child to Class-I with the mainstream students for better inclusive studies, which the parent agreed.  The child appeared for Unit Test (online) in July, 2020 wherein she performed satisfactorily and was promoted to Class-II.  However, she stopped attending classes after her promotion to Class-II.

4. It was further submitted that school was not violating any provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 with respect to students of CWSN category.  The school authorities followed regulation of inclusive education in letter and spirit and always ensures that all special students are taken care of according to their disability.  Special Wing of the AFGJI is an independent reputed entity although, it co-exists in the same premises for giving education to children with special needs and choice of admission to this Special School is by choice/request of the parent.

5. With regard to RCI certification, school authorities submitted that certificates of their employees have been duly renewed and that suitable action was taken against all the individuals by the school.  Regarding registration of the school under RPwD Act, 2016, it was submitted that all the papers/formalities for the same have been completed and is under process.

6. Vide rejoinder dated 12.03.2021, the complainant submitted the copies of the fee slip deposited by her, application for Transfer Certificate of the child, Special Wing Progress Report Card 2019-2020, 2020-21 and screenshots of parent portal.

7. After due deliberations and discussion held, the following was recommended:-

(i) that the DoE should take due cognizance regarding the concerned teachers with expired certification from RCI and the school as per the rules and existing regulations.  It was revealed that during renewal of RCI certificates in respect of the teachers, a penalty is added for non-timely updation.   A report of confirmation to this effect be submitted to this court by 22.03.2021. 

(ii)School authorities were asked to provide all necessary assistance and support to all the children with special need alongwith  parents for the overall welfare. 

8. The complaint was disposed of with the above recommendations.

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 15th day of March, 2021. 


           (Ranjan Mukherjee)
                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Deepak Kumar Vs. The DCP South East District | Case No. 1868/1111/2020/07/3353-55 | Dated:15-03-21

 
In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone 011-23216002-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
(Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016)

Case No. 1868/1111/2020/07/3353-55 Dated:15-03-21 


In the matter of:

Sh. Deepak Kumar S/o. Sh. Suresh Kumar, 
H.No. K—83, Gali No.4, 
Jaitpur extension-, Badarpur, 
New Delhi-110044.                     
(E-mail: sonudj8447@gmail.com)                           ……Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
South East District,
Pocket-C, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi-110076                                                    ……..Respondent 
 
Date of Hearing: 12.03.2021

Present: Sh. Deepak Kumar, complainant.
Sh. Satvinder Rana & Sh. Bhoor Singh, on behalf of Respondent. 

ORDER

The above complaint of Sh. Deepak Kumar, a person with 90% locomotor disability was received through email dated 09.07.2021 from Sh. Kapil Kumar Aggarwal, National President, Federation of Disabled Rights regarding fraud made by one person namely Sh. Wakil Ahmad  by financing a scooty from complainant’s bank account by using his documents. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent for submission of their comments. Respondent vide their reply dated 05.10.2020 received from Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South East Distt. submitted that as per the complainant’s allegation, a person named Sh. Wakil Ahmad had lured him on the pretext of availing a free scooty through National Disable Sena and took his documents i.e. bank passbook, disability certificate, pan card and aadhar card.  He was promised that the scooty would be given to him on 16.11.2019.  Due to some problems he could not reach the venue to avail the scooty. Thereafter, he received a message that cheque issued by him bounced but the scooty was financed on his name with the help of issued documents.  An enquiry into the matter got conducted through ACP/Badarpur/SED.  During the course of enquiry, statement of the complainant was recorded, who stated that he had amicably resolved the matter and now he does not want any legal action on his complaint.  Hence, no police action is warranted. 

3. The reply filed by the respondent was forwarded to the complainant for submission of his rejoinder.  The complainant vide his email dated 18.02.2021 informed that the Police has not taken any action to redress his grievance. 

4. During the hearing on 12.03.2021, complainant was present and reiterated his written submissions and pleaded for settlement of his case and refund of his total money.  He also requested that the bank authorities should also be directed to stop deducting further EMIs from his account. 

5. Sh. Satvinder Rana , Inspector appeared on behalf of respondent and informed that the complainant had initially shared the details of his bank accounts for procurement of a free scooty to advance his accessibility and mobility.  Later on, he changed his mind due to delay in providing him the scooty and requested to refund his amount. Further, it is informed that the organisation which mooted the idea of providing the scooty is also working for persons with disabilities, especially with respect to Accessibility & Mobility.  He also revealed that both the parties met at the Police Station and deliberated couple of times and the scooty was also brought in the Police Station Jaitpur and offered to the complainant.  

6. Notwithstanding the above, the complainant confirmed that he was not keen to avail the scooty anymore.  On 10.03.2021, both the parties were called to the Police Station and mediated that complainant would be refunded with his dues by 17.03.2021.  

7. The Court after due deliberations, recommends as under:-

(i) DCP (South East) District specially Sh. Satvinder Rana, Inspector  are hereby directed to ensure that the National Disability Army and Sh. Wakil Ahmed and others return the money of complainant and accordingly a Closure Report be filed in this office by 19.03.2021.
(ii) A copy of this Closure Report should also be sent to the Manager, Corporation Bank, Jaitpur, Delhi where the complainant has his bank account with the instructions that the complainant’s account should not be deducted with EMI in lieu of financing scooty, henceforth.  

8. Accordingly, the case is disposed off. 

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 15th day of March, 2021.      


(Ranjan Mukherjee )
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:

The Bank Manager, Corporation Bank, Jaitpur, Delhi with the direction that on receipt  of closure report from DCP(South East)

Sh. Deepak Kumar, Complainant (Savings Bank A/c No. 520331002627870) in the above case should not be penalised further and EMI deduction from his account should also be stopped henceforth.