Tuesday, June 28, 2022

SUO-MOTU Regarding “Earmarking of parking slots for PwDs ” Vs. Commissioner MCD & 7 Others | Case No. 2543/1101/2022/03/5763-5768 | Dated:28-06-22

 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-23216001-04, Email: comdis.delhi@delhi.gov.in


Case No. 2543/1101/2022/03/5763-5768 Dated:28-06-2022

In the matter of :

SUO-MOTU Regarding “Earmarking of parking slots for PwDs ”

Versus

As per enclosed list ..............  8  Respondents


ORDER

Specific parking slots for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) have to be mandatorily earmarked. Signages to that effect are also required to be displayed accordingly in the parking lots by the concerned controlling authorities. In this regard (Hon’ble High Court Delhi, Order dated 11.02.2015 in WP(C) No. 1977/2014) may also be referred.

2. Section 41(1)(a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides that:- 

41.   “(1) The appropriate Government shall take suitable measures to provide,— (a) facilities for persons with disabilities at bus stops, railway stations and airports conforming to the accessibility standards relating to parking spaces, toilets, ticketing counters and ticketing machines.”

 3. All parking lot owning agencies/Departments needs to adhere to the RPwD Act, 2016 and instructions issued by Hon’ble High Court Delhi in this regard.

4. Section 80 (b) of the RPwD Act, 2016 provides that State Commissioner ;

“shall inquire, suo motu or otherwise deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and safeguards available to them in respect of matters for which the State Government is the appropriate Government and take up the matter with appropriate authorities for corrective action.”

5. A suo motu cognizance was taken under Section 80 of the Act and the respondents were accordingly directed vide notice dated 29.03.2022 followed by reminders dated 11.05.2022 and 27.05.2022 to confirm this court the earmarking of parking slots by the concerned agencies alongwith display of signage boards accordingly and also enclose photographs for evidence for each parking lot.

6. In response to notice, all the respondents furnished the reply except PWD and DDA.  This Court has taken a very serious view of it.  Attention is invited to Provision of Section 93 of the Act which is reproduced below:-

93. “Whoever, fails to produce any book, account or other documents or to furnish any statement, information or particulars which, under this Act or any order, or direction made or given thereunder, is duty bound to produce or furnish or to answer any question put in pursuance of the provisions of this Act or of any order, or direction made or given thereunder, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees in respect of each offence, and in case of continued failure or refusal, with further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day, of continued failure or refusal after the date of original order imposing punishment of fine.”

7. MCD, NDMC, DCB and DMRC submitted that they have earmarked parking lots for persons with disabilities and also instructed the controlling authorities/ contractors to maintain it and properly display the signages to this effect.  They have also enclosed photographs to this effect.  Traffic Police has informed that the parking sites/lots are allotted and maintained by civic bodies such as MCD, NDMC, DUSIB etc.  Delhi Traffic Police only conveys feasibility report to these agencies from traffic point of view as and when asked by them.  Further, the matter regarding providing accessibility in the Government Office building also pertains to civic agencies.

8. It is observed that there is not sufficient parking lots earmarked for PwDs and there is also lack of signages.  Attention of all is invited to the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Design Accessibility in India 2021 issued by Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Govt. of India.  According to these guidelines the number of parking lots should be earmarked in the following manner:-

Number of Vehicle Parking Units

Number of Accessible Parking Lots

For 50 parking lots (1-50)

1

Next 50 lots (51-100)

1

Every subsequent 200 lots or any part thereof

1

9. Keeping in view the replies and photographs submitted by the respondents and the state of affairs in respect of earmarking of parking lots by the concerned agencies, the following are recommended:-

(i) No. of parking lots should be earmarked in accordance with the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Design Accessibility in India 2021.

(ii) Parking management should ensure keeping the reserved lots unoccupied except in any emergency.

(iii) Parking lots should be fully accessible for PwDs.  International Symbol of Accessibility should be clearly marked at the accessible parking lots.

(iv) Proper sign boards should be displayed at relevant places and these should not be obstructed by a vehicle parked in the designated lot.

(v) It should be ensured that parking management staff is sensitised and trained towards the needs of persons with disabilities, elderly and others. 

10. This court be informed of the action taken by all the concerned respondents on the recommendations as above within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016.  

11. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court  this  28th day of June, 2022. 

  (Ranjan Mukherjee)
                             State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

 


List of Respondents

  1. Now, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
  2. The Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, 9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi -110002
  3. The Commissioner,North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 4th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi -110002
  4. The Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation,419, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi -110096
  5. The Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. .
  6. The CEO, Delhi Cantonment Board, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt-10.
  7. Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, 12th Floor, MSO Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi: 110002.
  8. Managing Director, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Lane, Barakhamba, New Delhi, Delhi 110001.
  9. The Special Commissioner of Police (Traffic), 3rd Floor, Tower-1, Delhi Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi – 110001. (Email-     splcp-traffic-dl@nic.in).


Tuesday, June 14, 2022

Yogesh Pal Vs. Institute for the Blind, | Case No. 2484/1111/2022/01/5653-5654 | Dated:14-06-22

 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, Email: comdis.delhi@delhi.gov.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]


Case No. 2484/1111/2022/01/5653-5654                 Dated:14-06-22 

In the matter of:

Sh. Yogesh Pal
S/o. Sh. Ram Swaroop Pal,
Institute for the Blind,
Panchkuian Road, New Delhi-110001
(e-mail: yogeshpal2562@gmail.com) ......…..Complainant

Versus

The Administrative Secretary,
Institute for the Blind,
Panchkuian Road, 
Near R.K. Ashram Metro Station,
Opp. Pillar No. 24, New Delhi-110001
(e-mail: ifbblindschool@gmail.com ) ………..Respondent


Date of Hearing: 14.06.2022

Present: Sh. Yogesh Pal, Complainant

Sh.  Shivendra Kumar, Administrative Secretary on behalf of respondent


ORDER

The complainant, a person with visual impairment vide email dated 17.01.2022 filed a complaint under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act regarding discrimination by the respondent.  The complainant submitted that he is studying in the institute since 2015 and residing in the hostel of the institute.  Further, whenever any friend comes to meet him and wants to stay with him, the school authorities do not allow while they are permitting others to do so. Thus, he requested to intervene and stop the discrimination by the Institute.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 27.01.2022 followed by reminders dated 18.02.2022, 22.03.2022 and 12.05.2022.  In response Vice Principal of the Institute for the Blind vide letter dated 12.05.2022 submitted that the Institute is providing free of cost education to blind students upto class 8th  and free hostel facility to the blind students.  He further informed that complainant brings his friends to his room without any information or intimation to the institute.  Most of them are the students who are expelled from other institutes and are involved in bad habits.  The complainant was repeatedly asked to refrain from such activities but he never listened to the staff and also misbehaved with the management. Thus, in order to protect other students from the bad influence of such outsiders, authorities have prohibited entry of the visitors of complainant. They also brought above facts to the notice of the Sh. C.K. Chaturvedi, Retired Additional District Judge who had been appointed as Receiver on 25.10.2019 by the Hon’ble District Court, Saket for managing the affairs of the above Institute.

3. As the complainant was not satisfied with the reply of the respondent which was forwarded to him, a hearing was scheduled on 14.06.2022.  The complainant reiterated his submissions and added that he should not be discriminated by Institute / School Management as they are permitting other students to let their guests stay with them but only his guests/friends are prohibited in hostel. 

4.   After due deliberation and discussion, it is observed by the Court that the complainant should cooperate with the authorities of the Institute by mending his behaviour and following all the rules / bye laws framed by the Institute in order to maintain discipline.  However, taking an empathetic view in the matter and request of the complainant, it is recommended that no such discrimination should be done by respondent in case of complainant and he should be treated on similar grounds as made for others.  Thus, Respondent is also advised to adopt an empathic approach towards the complainant and other visually impaired students / inmates residing the Institute and maintain a uniformed policy for all.  

5. The case is closed with the above recommendations and action taken be intimated to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 14th day of June, 2022.  

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 
                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities



Wednesday, June 8, 2022

Chander Shakher Taneja Vs. DC(West Zone) SDMC & Anr. | Case No.2580/1101/2022/05/5597-5599 | Dated:08-06-2022

 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, 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.2580/1101/2022/05/5597-5599                Dated: 08-06-22

In the matter of:

Sh. Chander Shakher Taneja
Through Email cs.taneja29@gmail.com                …………..Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner(West Zone), 
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
290,Road Number 28, Nehru Nagar, 
Shivaji Place, Basai Dara pur New Delhi-110027     ...............Respondent No.1

The SHO, 
8, Kirti Shikar, 
District Centre, Janakpuri, 
New Delhi-110058.                                            ............Respondent No.2

Date of hearing:   07.06.2022

Present: Sh. Chander Shakher Taneja, Complainant

Sh. T.P. Puri, AE, West Zone on behalf of Respondent No.1

Sh. Somesh, ASI on behalf of Respondent No.2


ORDER

The complainant, a person with 60% locomotor disability filed a complaint vide email dated 28.04.2022, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, regarding unauthorized & illegal construction by his neighbour at ground floor.

2. The matter was taken up with the South DMC vide letter dated  04.05.2022 with a copy to SHO, Janakpuri. However, no response was received from the respondents and therefore a hearing was scheduled on 07.06.2022.  

3. During the hearing, complainant reiterated his submissions and stated that he is the owner of LIG Flat No. 51 B (First Floor), Block A5B/A5C, (opp. Possangi Pur Village), Janak Puri, New Delhi 110058.  The current owners of LIG Flat No. 51A (Ground Floor), Block A5B/A5C, (opp. Possangi Pur Village), Janak Puri, New Delhi 110058  are doing unauthorized construction.  They have constructed the new structure with complete coverage of the front veranda with “lenthil/lantter” for commercial purpose. The construction is in process and completely “altering/changing” the structure in an objectionable manner which will weaken the structure affecting the safety, security, and privacy. When the construction is complete, it will “alter” the structure of the building and weaken it and will endanger the safety, security, and privacy of the occupants of our building.  He requested for kind assistance and intervention to stop the unauthorized construction, remove the illegal structure, safeguard his right to use and access his property and also the safety, security and privacy of the occupants of the building.  

4. Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 07.06.2022 filed during the hearing submitted that on receiving the complaint, the site was inspected and after inspection, action u/s 343/344(i) of the DMC Act vide file No. EE(B)-II/WZ/UC/22/167 dated 17.05.2022 was initiated and a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Owner/Occupier.  As no reply was received, Demolition Notice was also issued.  Further, sealing action u/s 345A of the DMC Act was also initiated and will be taken earliest after following due process of law, as per DMC Act.

5. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 24.05.2022 filed during the hearing submitted that a letter was sent to MCD on 19.05.2022 regarding the construction.  Thereafter a visit of site was done but there was no worker at the site.

6. Taking into account the actions so far taken by Respondent No.1, the case is closed in this Court with the direction to Respondent No. 1 to submit ATR to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act. 

7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 07th day of June, 2022.  


(Ranjan Mukherjee) 
                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities



Monday, June 6, 2022

Sanjay Kumar Vs. Spice Jet Ltd. | Case No. 2467/1111/2021/12/5565-5566 | Dated: 06-06-2022

 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. 2467/1111/2021/12/5565-5566                          Dated:06-06-2022 

 In the matter of:

Sh. Sanjay Kumar
H.No. 140, Pocket-12,
Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi-110086                                       ……..…Complainant
(E-mail: sanjayjakhar1977@gmail.com)

Versus

Ms. Tinha Sethi,
Nodal Officer, 
Spice Jet Ltd.,
319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, 
Gurgaon-122016.
(E-mail: nodalofficer@spicejet.com)                        ……………Respondent

ORDER

1. The complainant, a person with more than 70% locomotor disability, filed a complaint dated 26.12.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act regarding harassment and non refund of his claim of Rs. 18195/- by Spice jet Airlines.  The complainant submitted that he alongwith his family members planned to visit Sringar from Delhi.  When he reached the entry gate, it was closed citing that he was late.  He requested the staff over there to let him and his family board the plane as it was still there but they refused.  He further added that he had to pay an amount of Rs. 18,195/- to take another flight.  He requested vide e-mails to the company for refund of Rs.18,195/- but they have not taken suitable action.  He approached this court for refund of his money and for action against the company for misbehavior with a person with disability.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 28.12.2021 followed by reminders dated 09.02.2022 and 06.04.2022. However, no response was received from the respondent and this Court has taken a serious view of it.  A hearing was scheduled on 07.06.2022.  

3. In the meantime, the complainant vide email dated 02.06.2022 informed that he had entered into an agreement with the respondent vide which the respondent had agreed to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Only) towards full and final settlement and satisfaction of the complainant.  The complainant further requested with thanks to close the case.  This was confirmed over the telephone from the complainant.

4. Keeping in view the above, the case is closed in this Court with the direction to the respondent to respond the communications from the Courts in a time bound and appropriate manner.  The respondent is also directed to be more sensitised towards persons with disabilities. 

5. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 6th day of June, 2022.  

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 
                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Friday, May 27, 2022

Aman Kumar Vs. The Commercial Manager, Anand & Company | Case No. 2381/1024/2021/10/5440-5442 | Dated: 27-05-2022

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.2381/1024/2021/10/5440-5442              Dated:27-05-2022

In the matter of:

Sh. Aman Kumar
R/o D-684, Gali No. 31, Amar Colony, 
East Gokalpur,  
Delhi-110094.                  ……….Complainant                            

Versus

The Commercial Manager,
Anand & Company, 
3rd, Shop No. 309, Vashisth Complex, 
Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Sikander pur Market,
Sikanderpur, Gurgram (Haryana)-122002.
Email: aanandandco@gmail.com                      ...............Respondent 


Date of Hearing: 26.05.2022

Present: Sh. Aman Kumar, Complainant.

Sh. Harpreet S. Nagpal alongwith Sh. R.S. Nagpal, Advocate on behalf of Respondent.


ORDER

The complainant, a person with 40% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 29.09.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act and alleged that he had worked with M/s Anand & Company for a long period from 01/09/2001 to 15/06/2018 as Lift Operator but the Company had terminated his services w.e.f. 15.06.2018, which was after expiry of his ongoing contract with the company.  The above company did not pay him due gratuity for 17 years 08 months 15 days and bonus for 18 months.  He informed that his wife is also a person with disability and his family is facing great financial constraints, thus, he requested this Court for getting payment of his outstanding dues from the Company. 

2. The matter was taken up with respondent vide letter dated 24.12.2021  followed by reminder dated 17.02.2022  for submission of their comments. However in the absence of any response from respondent the case was fixed for hearing on 26.05.2022 and both parties submitted their respective facts as under:

(i) Complainant reiterated his written submission and again requested for clearance of his outstanding dues with regard to bonus and gratuity.

(ii) Representative of Respondent filed their written submission during hearing & informed that the Company was providing outsourced maintenance services to the State Trading Corporation of India (STC) i.e. the principal employer in the case.  Upon determination of the maintenance contract award to the respondent by the State Trading Corporation of India (STC) w.e.f. 15.06.2018, complainant was directed to report for duty on different sites but he never reported for duty and also not approached the respondent for employment.  Further the respondent could not release the due payment of bonus and gratuity to its respective employees, including complainant on the ground that the State Trading Corporation of India (STC) had not released the due payment to the Company yet.  The representative of the respondent however, agreed that the Company is ready to pay the due amount relating to bonus and gratuity to the complainant if the principal employer – State Trading Corporation of India clears the bills. 

3. After due deliberations and discussion on the case, the court recommended as under:

(i) Court observed that complainant is entitled to get his outstanding dues from the respondent  thus respondent is directed to ensure that  the payment of outstanding dues with regard to bonus and gratuity be made to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 

(ii) Though there is no direct linkage of the State Trading Corporation of India but the Court desires that the State Trading Corporation of India being Principal Employer in the instant case should clear the long pending dues and bills of the Respondent M/s Anand and Company enabling them to pay the same to their respective employees including the PwD - complainant.  However, this is not to be linked to release of payment to the PwD Complainant. 

4. The case is disposed of. 

5. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 27th day of May, 2022.      


(Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:-The CMD, State Trading Corporation of India Limited (STC), Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110001 w.r.t. the Para 3(ii) of the Order.





Wednesday, May 25, 2022

Durgesh Mishra Vs. The Director, Directorate of Education | Case No. 2569/1024/2022/04/5412-5413 | Dated: 25-05-2022

 In the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundri 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. 2569/1024/2022/04/5412-5413                 Dated: 25-05-2022

In the matter of:

Sh. Durgesh Mishra
Flat No.42, Krishna Apartment, 
Block BH(East), Shalimar Bagh, 
New Delhi-110088. ............Complainant

                                                      Versus

The Director
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054. ……......Respondent


ORDER

The complainant, a person with 70% locomotor disability and a TGT (English) in a school under Dte. of Education vide complaint received from the Office of Chief Commissioner of PwDs on 13.04.2022 (e-mail), under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, alleged that he was not being paid the Transport Allowance (TA) at the double the normal rate as per Govt. of India Rules since his joining Dte. of Education and thus deprived of the right as a person with disability.  CCPD also forwarded the same complaint vide e-mail dated 18.04.2022 which was received by their department from an NGO Toshiyas, Bihar.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 19.04.2022 followed by reminder dated 04.05.2022. Head of the GBSS School, Shalamar Village on behalf of DOE vide letter dated 12.05.2022 replied that the complainant joined DOE on 27.08.2020 as TGT (English) under “General Category” through DSSSB.  On 26.12.2020, complainant applied to change his category from General to P.H. for which the file was forwarded before the Director of Education for change of category with the recommendation to consider the request of the complainant.  As per the rectification in the MIS online system of DOE, the category “PH/Ortho” was accepted by the department on 14.09.2021 and accordingly the benefit of double TA was released to the complainant w.e.f. 01.09.2021.  

3. The reply sent by the HOS, GBSS School, Shalamar Village was sent to the complainant vide this office letter dated 17.05.2022.  The complainant was not satisfied with the said reply.  The HOS was contacted on telephone and the issue was discussed at length and it was stressed that there is no fault of the complainant if the online system of the office of respondent approved the request of the complainant at a later date. 

4. After perusing the complaint, the reply submitted by the respondent and discussion with the HOS, it was observed that the complainant requested the respondent for change of category from “General” to “Ph-Ortho” on 26.12.2020 which was accepted by the respondent on 14.09.2021.  In view of this, it is recommended that the complainant be provided the benefit of double the Transport Allowance with effect from the date he informed/requested for change of category to “PH-Ortho”.

5. This court be informed of the action taken by the respondent within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016 i.e. 26.12.2020.  

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 25th day of May, 2022. 


(Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities


Wednesday, May 18, 2022

Babu Lal Gurjar Vs. DCP Outer District & Anr. | Case No.2477/1111/2022/01/5310-5312 | Dated:18-05-2022

 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@delhi.gov.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]


Case No.2477/1111/2022/01/5310-5312                Dated:18-05-22

In the matter of:

Sh. Babu Lal Gurjar,
3060, 2nd Floor, Mahindra Park,  
Rani Bagh, New Delhi-110034.
(Email: babu21383@gmail.com)                                  …………Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,  
Outer District, 
Guru Harkrishan Marg, Maulana Azad Society,
Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitam Pura, 
New Delhi-110034.                       ........... Respondent No. 1

Smt. Poonam & Relatives
(as stated in complaint),
B-268, Jwalapuri, Near Amalwas School,
New Delhi-110087. ........... Respondent No. 2

Date of hearing:   17.05.2022

Present: Sh. Babu Lal Gurjar, Complainant

Sh. Kishore Kumar, ASI, CAW Cell, PS Pitam Pura on behalf of Respondent No. 1

Smt. Poonam, Sh. Kamal Kumar, Sh. Hari Chand and Sh. Rakesh Tanvar, Advocate, on behalf of Respondent No. 2


ORDER

The complainant, a person with more than 40% locomotor disability, filed a complaint dated 29.12.2021, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act.  The complainant vide his complaint submitted that he is being continuously harassed mentally, physically and financially by his wife Smt. Poonam and his in-laws.  He requested this Court to interfere and save him from the torture by his wife and in-laws. 

2. The matter was taken up with Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 12.01.2022 followed by reminders dated 17.02.2022 and 06.04.2022.  However, no response was received.  Therefore, a hearing was scheduled on 17.05.2022.  Respondent No. 2 was also impleaded.

3. During the hearing, the complainant reiterated his submissions and alleged that he fears threat of life by his wife Smt. Poonam and his in-laws.  Representative of Respondent No. 1 submitted reply dated 10.05.2022 during the hearing.  It was informed that Smt. Poonam wife of the complainant had filed a complaint dated 06.12.2021 in CAW Cell and alleged that the complainant is demanding a dowry of Rs.15 lakhs and a car.  As the demand of the complaint was not fulfilled, he started mental and physical torture to Smt. Poonam.  The concerned ASI of CAW Cell tried to counsel both the parties and explained the legal position in the matter.  Next date of hearing in CAW Cell is 20.05.2022.  It was also submitted in the reply that the complainant had also filed complaint in PS Rani Bagh dated 19.09.2021 and 01.11.2021 against his wife Smt. Poonam and his in-laws which was investigated and not substantiated and was closed.

4. The Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.2 filed reply dated 17.05.2022 during the hearing.  Vide reply, it was submitted that the allegations made by the complainant were baseless, false, frivolous and misguiding.  It was also added that Smt. Poonam had filed a case of Domestic Violence Act U/s Cr.PC 125 in the Hon’ble Rohini Court and the next date of hearing in this case is 23.06.2022. Further, CAW Cell had also about to finalize FIR against the complainant U/s Cr. PC 498A, 406 and other sections which were filed by Smt. Poonam.  It was alleged that the complainant had filed the present complaint just to divert the ongoing proceedings in the above mentioned cases.  Further, it is the complainant who is threatening  Smt. Poonam, demanding dowry and torturing her in every possible way and is also having extra marital affairs for which a CD was attached with the reply.  It was further alleged by Smt. Poonam that the complainant is disabled in certificate only.  He walks easily without stick on uneven roads and using this as a tool to save him.

5. After considering the submissions of the complainant & respondents and due deliberations and discussion, the Court observed that the allegations made by the complainant are not substantiated and as the matter is sub-judice in the Hon’ble Rohini Court and CAW Cell and the Court will decide the matter and it is to be abided by all concerned, the case is closed in this Court.

6. The Court further directs the complainant not to pressurise his wife and family especially when the case is sub-judice.  The Court also directs the representative of Respondent No.1 to ensure that nobody threatens the complainant and take immediate action if any incident reported by the complainant.

7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 18th day of May, 2022. 

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 
                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities