ORDER JUSTICE R.N. BISWAL, President. - This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16.6.2001 passed by the District Forum, Phulbani in C.D. Case No.123 of 2000 directing the appellant to issue a duplicate certificate of Madhyama New Examination held in the year 1987 within three days of receipt of the order and to pay Rs.500/- as cost to the respondent. Respondent as complainant filed the aforesaid case stating that he appeared Madhyama New Examination in the year 1987 in A.J.O. High School, Phulbani Centre and got passed. Appellant issued the original pass certificate in his favour, but as ill luck would have it, he lost it somewhere. So on 1.11.1997, he applied to the appellant for issuance of a duplicate certificate on payment of fees of Rs.50/-, but as it was not supplied, he filed the aforesaid case with prayer to direct the appellant to issue the duplicate certificate and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards harassment and mental agony. On being noticed, appellant as opposite party filed written version before the District Forum stating that the dispute was not maintainable as the respondent was not a ‘consumer’ and it was barred by law of limitation. As per Rule 11 (b) of the Madhyama Regulation, the application for duplicate certificate ought to be accompanied with an affidavit sworn before the First Class Magistrate. The applicant is also required to furnish postal stamp for sending the duplicate certificate to him. But the respondent did not comply with the same. So, the duplicate certificate was not rightly sent to him. Accordingly, appellant/opposite party prayed to dismiss the C.D. Case. After hearing the parties, the District Forum held that since the respondent deposited Rs 50/- for supply of the duplicate certificate, he was a ‘consumer’. It also held that respondent filed an affidavit in support of the fact that he lost the certificate and accordingly, passed the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that depositing of Rs.50/- by the respondent will not amount to consideration for issuance of the duplicate certificate as such the District Forum erred in holding that the respondent was a ‘consumer’ qua the appellant. He further submits that the respondent applied for the duplicate certificate on 1.11.1997. As per the General Regulations, the certificate ought to have been issued within 100 days thereafter. In other words, the duplicate certificate ought to have been issued by 9.2.1998. He further submits that the respondent applied for the duplicate certificate on 1.11.1997. As per the General Regulations, the certificate ought to have been issued within 100 days thereafter. In other words, the duplicate certificate ought to have been issued by 9.2.1998. The Consumer Complaint having been filed on 30.12.2000, it was barred by time. Learned Counsel for appellant furthermore submits that since the respondent did not deposit the postal stamps for sending the duplicate certificate to him and did not file an affidavit showing that the original certificate was lost, the District Forum ought to have dismissed the case and accordingly prays to allow the appeal. None appears on behalf of respondent on call. Since the respondent paid Rs.50/- for issuance of the duplicate certificate, we are of the same view of the District Forum that the respondent is a ‘consumer’ qua the appellant. The Consumer Disputes Case ought to have been filed as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant on or before 09.2.2000, it having been filed on 30.12.2000, it is barred by time. With regard to merit of the case, which is discussed on academic point of view, even though the District Forum held that an affidavit having been sworn by the respondent was filed, but on perusal of the record no such affidavit was found. On perusal of the application made by the respondent said to be for issuance of a duplicate certificate, it is found that the application has been made for issuance of the provisional/original certificate and not a duplicate certificate. So there is also no merit in the case. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, if the duplicate certificate in question has not been sent to the respondent as yet and if he applies for the same afresh on proper format and as per rules, the same shall be issued in favour of the respondent by the appellant without delay. Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith. Appeal allowed.