Misrepresentation in DCDRC’s Order, Heckled and Humiliated by Court Official
An important note before we begin. The orders were not uploaded online to the Confonet since 6 May 2024. I’ve filed multiple concerns and complaints in this regard. I only noticed the 19 July 2024 order and the misrepresented statements on the 30th of July 2024 when all the pending orders were uploaded with the final judgment. Orders and Proceedings Weren’t Appearing on Confonet Post 6 May 2024. (Link)
We will be discussing two incidents over here.
It seems an attempt of character assassination by misrepresentation that led to public defamation has been made in the Order published by DCDRC on 19 July 2024 for the case CC-353-2022.
The Judges framed me right on the court premises by accusing me of portraying unpredictable behavior in the order copy.
Why didn’t they point it out verbally on the floor of the court? Instead, they directly mentioned it in the 19 July 2024 order copy of case CC/353/2022 which wasn’t published online until 11 days later on 30 July 2024, when the matter came to my cognizance.
‘We failed to understand as to how he took the photograph of the Gate of the Commission. When this question was raised he became annoyed and expressed his angry movement.’
The complainant (plaintiff) finds it extremely important to highlight such behavioral anecdotes that have been formally mentioned in the order copy to put forward his version of the story.
I didn’t become annoyed nor did I express it with angry movement.
This incident on the court’s floor during the ongoing hearing is an outright violation of right to justice, personal liberty, and human rights.
I’ll describe the whole incident.
I received the Questionnaires from HDFC ERGO on the 10th of July 2024 and replied to them on the 12th of July 2024. I had to submit two documents on the 12th of July 2024.
One of them is “Objection and Response to OP HDFC ERGO 10 July 2024 Petition under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act praying for rejection of the present complaint on the grounds mentioned below.” of case CC-354-2022. Another one is “Reply to HDFC ERGO by Ratul Aich, on Written questionnaires put to Complainant as Cross Examination on behalf of the Opposite Party above named.” of case CC-353-2022.
At the time of the hearing on 10th July 2024. I’ve been instructed by the President to submit the notarized copy of the document.
I thought the “Objection and Response to OP HDFC ERGO 10 July 2024 Petition under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act praying for rejection of the present complaint on the grounds mentioned below.” of the case, CC-354-2022 needs to be notarized.
However, on the 12th of July, it was clarified to me at approximately 4:20 PM that on the 10th of July 2024, I had rather been instructed to submit the notarized copy of the “Reply to HDFC ERGO by Ratul Aich, on Written questionnaires put to Complainant as Cross Examination on behalf of the Opposite Party above named.” of case CC-353-2022.
I’ve been affirmed by the bench that they will be available till late in the court premises and have been asked to get it notarized. I’m a pro-se-litigant, so I did as the bench asked me to do. I rushed to the Session Court of Barasat. Get the document notarized and returned to the DCDRC at approximately 5:29 PM only to find it closed. Therefore, I took some photos of the closed gates. The next day, I sent the documents by registry post RW780882399IN and informed DCDRC by the following email.
from: ratul aich <ratulaich@gmail.com>
to: confo-pn-wb@nic.in
date: Jul 13, 2024, 12:57 PM
subject: Replying to HDFC ERGO Questionnaire notarized copy CC-353–2022 sent by registry post
mailed-by: gmail.com
CC/353/2022.
Replying to questionnaire by OP HDFC ERGO.
The Hon’ble President DCDRC, Barasat asked me to submit a notarised copy of the document on 12 July 2024. However, when I returned at around 5:30 p.m. the court has closed, therefore sending the document by registry post.
DCDRC, Barasat, North 24 Parganas Copy sent by registry post RW780882399IN.
Regards,
Ratul Aich
Unfortunately, the registry post sent to DCDRC was still on the way as the 19 July 2024 hearing began. It is during the hearing the President questioned me about the documents, I was expected to submit on 12 July 2024 after getting it notarized. I explained to him the incident of 12 July 2024, that on returning from the notarized office located in Session Court, Barasat, I found DCDRC closed. So, I decided to send the documents by registry post on 13 July 2024 as there was quite a good number of days between the upcoming hearing date on 19 July 2024. It is unfortunate that the local registry post is taking longer than expected. The President didn’t believe my words of revisiting the DCDRC only to find it closed. In my clarification, I showed him the photographs of the closed DCDRC taken on 12 July 2024 and showed him the time stamps. The President also stated that he was available till late evening on the court premises. I looked around pondering about another route he might be using to reach his chamber if in case the front shutter is closed as it was on 12 July 2024.
In the meantime, a DCDRC official sitting nearby heckled and humiliated me.
His words, ‘He often takes photographs’, ‘He got a habit of taking photographs’, ‘Why did you take a photo of a Government Establishment?’ etc. I got distracted and tried to reply to him that I’m a Visual Communication professional and Pursuing Mass Communication and Journalism, therefore taking photographs is a routine practice. The President seeing me distracted scolded me in front of everyone to which I apologise.
Later I raised the issue of indecent behavior with the plaintiff in court premises by the clerk spoiling the decorum of the court right in front of the President as such a behavior is considered professional misconduct which surfaces a lack of humility towards fellow people in court.
I failed to understand, considering everything that happened that day, which scenario has been misinterpreted to state that the complainant became annoyed and expressed his angry movement?
Agitation and annoyance are human reflexes. The fight-flight-freeze-or-fawn is also called hyperarousal or the acute stress response. It is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival. The court was full of feeble eyewitnesses because everyone including me was dependent on the Bench to find justice. I would have acknowledged if anything of that sort had been done by me. Having said that, I’d assert that the statement ‘We failed to understand as to how he took the photograph of the Gate of the Commission. When this question was raised he became annoyed and expressed his angry movement.’ made in the Order on 19 July 2024 is misrepresented by the DCDRC Bench.
Here are the three photos taken at 17:29 on 12 July 2024.
Copy of the DCDRC’s Order on 19th of July 2024.
DCDRC North 24 Paraganas Barasat
Kolkata-700126.
Complaint Case No. CC/353/2022
RATUL AICH
Vs.
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. Daman Prasad Biswas PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MR. Sri Abhijit Basu MEMBER
PRESENT: Dated : 19 Jul 2024
Order
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. №353/2022
P R E S E N T :- Sri Daman Prosad Biswas………President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu………………. Member.
Order №21
Dated.19.07.2024
Today is fixed for filing reply by the Complainant and filing evidence by the O.P.
Complainant in person is present.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P is present.
Complainant submits that he came to this Commission on 12/07/2024 at 5:29 p.m. but he could not submit the same as office time was over. He further submits that he took photograph of the Gate of this Commission.
We failed to understand as to how he took the photograph of the Gate of the Commission. When this question was raised he became annoyed and expressed his angry movement.
He further submits that he already sent the same by post.
At this stage O.P filed affidavit — in — chief. Copy served upon the Complainant.
To 22/07/2024 for filing questionnaire by the Complainant.
Member President
C.C. №353/2024
LATER
Dated.19.07.2024
It is now 4:55 p.m. Office of this Commission received one e-mail sent by Complainant through internet.
Let it be kept with the record.
Member President
[HON’BLE MR. Daman Prasad Biswas]
PRESIDENT
[HON’BLE MR. Sri Abhijit Basu]
MEMBER
Copy of the Complaint made to DCDRC, SCDRC, and NCDRC for Heckling and Humiliating the Plaintiff (Complainant) by a Court Official.
I wrote a letter on the heckling incident and tried to submit it to the Bench on the same day i.e., 19th of July 2024. The Bench refused to accept the letter, citing that they would take it only in the presence of the opposite party HDFC ERGO, and only if I provided a copy to HDFC ERGO and then submitted it to the bench. How does an incident that happened with me on the court’s floor, in which an official heckled me during the hearing, have anything to do with HDFC ERGO? This is a matter between me and the court. A copy of the letter submitted to the court could have been provided to HDFC ERGO later.
Therefore, that evening I was forced to send the letter to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by email.
On the next hearing date of 22nd July 2024, I again tried to submit this letter. The HDFC ERGO’s counsel was absent on that day. Again the bench refused to accept the letter citing that they will deposit it only in the presence of the opposite party HDFC ERGO if I forthwith provide a copy of it to HDFC ERGO.
I was asked to submit a Brief Note of Argument on 24th July 2024. Tired of the routine refusal to accept the letter, I finally listed the incident in detail in the Brief Note of Argument itself so that a hard copy of it is available in the case file.
Subsequently, a hardcopy of the following letter has been submitted in court on 24 July 2024 and the same has been served to the OP HDFC ERGO’s onfloor advocate.
from: ratul aich <ratulaich@gmail.com>
to: confo-pn-wb@nic.in,
dr.ncdrc@gov.in,
ncdrc@nic.in,
wb-sforum@nic.in
cc: Prof Arul Selvan IGNOU MAJMCOL <ksarul@ignou.ac.in>,
“Dr. Amit Kumar Assistant Professor” <amitkumar@ignou.ac.in>,
Ms Padmini Jain Assistant Professor MAJMC Coordinator IGNOU <padminijain@ignou.ac.in>,
“Dr. Shikha Rai Associate Professor MAJMC Coordinator IGNOU” <shikharai@ignou.ac.in>,
confo-rh-wb@gov.in
date: Jul 19, 2024, 3:54 PM
subject: Verbally Humiliated by an Official in Court DCDRC Barasat — Formal Complaintmailed-by:gmail.com
Hi,
CC/353/2022.
Subject — Verbally Humiliated by an Official in Court DCDRC Barasat in front of President — Formal Complaint.
I’m an BSc Graduate in Visual Communication with approximately 15 years of experience in User Experience served as a Principal Consultant (Sr Manager level) of UX in Harman Connected Services (2016–2017), and pursuing MA Mass Communication and Journalism. I’ve all the reason to live with dignity and exercise the academic skills and practices.
Today on 19 July 2024, I appeared for CC/353/2022 hearing. It is during the hearing I’ve been asked to give reason to not submit a document on 12 July 2024. To which I answered that as I’m a pro-se-litigant layman and as the President DCDRC, Barasat, directed me on 12 July 2024 at around 4:20 PM (approximately) to get the documents notarized, I returned around 5.30 pm from the District Court, Barasat, and found the court premises closed. I took some photographs of the closed premises as evidence and on the next day, I sent the documents by registered post as I thought the locally sent registered post will reach the court in 2–3 days.
Today, I’ve been humiliated and heckled on the floor of court by one of the clerks/official in front of the President.
The President was enquiring about the reason for not submitting the documents on 12 July 2024. I was showing the President the photographs to affirm that I did visited the court after notarising the documents on 12 July 2024 but it was closed.
One of the clerks (Local name Hala da) was continuously heckling and taunting me in front of the President. His words, ‘He often takes photographs’, ‘He got a habit of taking photographs’, ‘Why did your took photo of a Government Establiment?’ etc. To which I get distracted and tried to reply to him that I’m a Visual Communication professional and Pursuing Mass Communication and Journalism, therefore taking photographs is a routine practice. The President seen me distracted scolded me in front of everyone to which I apologise. But I’d like to raise the issue of indecent behaviour with the plaintiff in court premises by the clerk spoiling the decorum of the court right in front of the President. This surface lack of humility towards fellow people in court and professional misconduct. Professional training to behave properly in court premises must be evaluated.
I’ve not seen him humiliating by heckling anyone else, then why is such an attitude taken towards me? Is it premeditated or an outcome of a conversation (gossips) behind my back.
Therefore greaving over this incident, I’m complaining this to the respective authority and I’d request you to evaluate the training for professional conduct given to officials in court premises as such indecent behaviour is concerning to the layman plaintiffs visiting court.
I’ve already complained about discrimination to the President, DCDRC, Barasat, in writing, in case CC/354/2022.
Regards,
Ratul Aich
Framing the Plaintiff through false allegations by the Supreme Bench in the Courtroom and publishing a misrepresented order is a Public Issue. Anyone can be framed likewise.
The matter at stake isn’t something that will impact me individually, but rather a matter of concern for the Citizens of India, and the public at large, therefore, in greater public interest, the public prosecutor and the State must be made a party in the matter.
If someone had done something under the bench then the bench would have been a witness. As in the case of the court official (office clerk) who heckled me.
However, here the bench itself is framing me with the written accusation in the order of 19 July 2024.
We often hear news stories of atrocities with the accused in police remand. In which the police would frame the accused by making false allegations about him. But now that the bench has done it in the court, it is setting everyone’s right to justice in jeopardy.
A Writ Petition challenging the circumstances as listed by the District CDRC, in their 19 July 2024 order copy of case CC/353/2022 would rather put the ‘burden of proof’ on the shoulder of me (the plaintiff). Therefore, visiting the High Court and filing a Writ Petition questioning the immunity (impunity) of Judges, won’t likely work in the favor of the Plaintiff, in the absence of conferring with solid proof (surveillance video camera inside the courtroom, live recording, and microphones) to hold the bench accountable beyond doubt (with utmost certainty) for framing the plaint with a false allegation.
Thus, I’ve made a complaint by email to the Court Matters Department and Compliances Department in the Bar Council of West Bengal and the Bar Council of India. Judicial Extortion Suspected. (Link)
If the courtroom had been equipped with CCTV cameras on the 19th of July 2024, it would not have been difficult to prove this incident.
CCTV in Court complexes; Judicial Infrastructure Digitisation: Supreme Court’s big guidelines for improved security for all stakeholders.
“Preserving the sanctity of a court as a space where justice is administered and the rule of law upheld being non-negotiable, it is critical that judicial institutions take comprehensive steps to safeguard the well-being of all stakeholders.”
Published in SCC Online on August 14, 2023 By Prachi Bhardwaj. (Link)
Jump to the Judgment post.
Salient Contemplation of Verdict Pronounced by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. (Link)
Or follow the series.
First in the series is Judicial Investigation Friendly Digital Systems, Judibility. (Link)
Previous in the series are the Questionnaires by HDFC ERGO in CC-353–2022. (Link)
Next in the series is, AFFIDAVIT-IN-CHIEF by HDFC ERGO CC-353-2022. (Link)
Last edited on 22 December 2024.
