DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __203 _ OF ___2014
DATE OF FILING :_6.5.2014 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 31.5.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Shri Santosh Kumar Sinha, son of late Sudhir Sinha of 81, Barisha Dakshin Para Road, P.S Thakurpukur, Kol-63.
Represented by Shri Joydeep Sinha, son of complainant and beneficiary of K’Oil Quota against his Ration Card under head of Family Santosh Kumar Singha
.
O.P/O.Ps : 1a) Dilip Shaw
1b) Sambhu Shaw
1c) Nandu Shaw
1(a) to 1(c) are resident of 404/271, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata-63, P.S Thakurpukur, Dist. South 24-Parganas .
2. The Chief Inspector, Consumer Goods, Directorate of Consumers Goods , Government of West Bengal, 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, P.S New Market, Kolkata-87.
3. The Director of Consumer Goods, Food and Supplies Department, Directorate of Consumers Goods , Government of West Bengal, 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, P.S New Market, Kolkata-87.
_________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Frustrated to get Kerosene oil from the shop of his dealer by virtue of Ration Cards held by him and his family members, the complainant has filed the instant case under section 12, C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case, as it stands revealed in the amended version of the complaint, may be epitomized as follows.
Complainant was a customer of kerosene oil from the shop of one dealer namely Mrs. Bina Kerosene Stores, CKS no. 945 of 77, D.H Road, Barisha, Purba Para, Kolkata-7-63. That kerosene shop was far away from the house of the complainant and, therefore, he was seized with the desire of getting his cards transferred to a nearby kerosene shop belonging to O.p-1 bearing CKS no. 963. The original O.P i.e O.P-1 is dead now and her legal representatives have been substituted to this case as O.P nos. 1(a) to 1(c). Complainant submitted an application duly endorsed by former dealer before the O.P-1 and thereby he prayed for transfer of his ration cards from the shop of Bina Kerosene Stores to the shop of O.P-1. The said application was addressed to O.P-2 and the same was duly forwarded to O.P-2 by O.P-1 on 17.1.2003. But, O.P-2 took no action on the said application of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant also wrote to O.P-2 on 11.6.2013 and 17.6.2013 ,praying for taking immediate action on the application filed by him. But, O.P-2 is alleged to have turned a deaf ear to such prayer of the complainant. Even, the complainant wrote to O.P-3 on 12.9.2013 and lastly on 11.12.2013 for redressal of his grievance ,but O.P-3also did not take any step. Complainant has been deprived of getting supply of kerosene oil till date and thereafter he has filed the instant case ,praying for issuing an order directing to supply the total quota of kerosene oil he has lost by the O.P nos. 1,2 and 3 to him since the date of his application, payment for compensation for harassment and mental agony and also for punitive damage etc. Hence, this case.
O.P-1 has filed written statement to contest herein. According to her, she is a kerosene dealer of CKS 963 and has been running the said business to her credit for more than 30 years. Ration cards of the complainant were transferred to his shop but the complainant did not turn up to draw kerosene oil from 18.2.2013. So, as per rules, she wrote to O.P nos. 2 and 3 and as a result ,the allotment of kerosene oil for 9 rations cards of the complainant was cancelled. She had no fault and is not liable to the complainant for any kind of inaction as alleged.
O.P nos. 2 and 3 i.e the Government Officers have also filed written statement to contend inter alia that rations cards were transferred to O.P-1 on 17.1.2013. Those cards were also registered in kerosene shop (CKS -963) of O.p-1 on 27.1.2013. Allotment of kerosene oil was also made to O.P-1 by O.P nos. 2 and 3 for 9 cards of the complainant for supply of kerosene oil since March, 2003. But allotment of supply was cancelled as the complainant did not turn up to O.P-1 for withdrawal of kerosene oil . There is no deficiency in service on their part and it is none but the complainant who is to blame for not drawing kerosene from the shop of O.P-1. The complainant has a litigant trend of mind; the case is vexatious and frivolous and ,therefore, should be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in law?
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service for not supplying the kerosene oil to the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant and also by the O.P-1. Questionnaires, replies filed by the parties are kept in the record . BNA filed by the complainant and the O.P nos. 2 and 3 are also kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 :
Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant has contended that the complainant used to purchase kerosene oil from a Government controlled outlet by virtue of his rations cards on payment of price at Government Controlled Rate. So, he is a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) (II) of the C.P Act, 1986 and as such the instant case which has been filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps is maintainable in law.
It is undisputed fact that complainant has ration cards for each of the 9 members of his family and that he used to draw kerosene oil by virtue of ration card from the authorized shop of one kerosene dealer namely Mrs. Bina Kerosene Stores (CKS 945). The kerosene oil which the complainant used to draw from the aforesaid shop of the dealer was for domestic use only and at Govt. controlled rate. That apart, it has been held in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. K.K Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787 that a case is maintainable against the Govt. Officers if the Govt. Officers are found quilty of deficiency in service and in that case, direction is to be given first to their department to pay the amount of compensation from the public fund and then to recover the same from the delinquent officers.
In the instant case, the complainant is a consumer and there is allegation of deficiency in service brought by the complainant against the O.Ps. This being so, it appears to us that the instant complaint is quite maintainable in law. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point no.2 & 3 :
It is the allegation of the complainant herein that he has submitted application for transfer of ration cards from his earlier dealer to the shop of the O.P-1 on 17.1.2013 and that no action has been taken on the part of the O.Ps since then and that the complainant has not been getting the facility of PDS kerosene oil since then. So, according to the submission of the complainant, the O.Ps are guilty of deficiency in service. The version of the O.P-1 is that the ration cards were transferred to her shop and allotment of kerosene oil was also made to her for supply to the complainant since March, 2013. But the complainant did not turn up to draw his quota of kerosene oil and, therefore, the allotment was cancelled in pursuance of her application made to O.P-2. The version of the O.P nos. 2 and 3 is that ration cards of the complainant were transferred to O.P-1 on 17.1.2013 ; those ration cards were also registered in the log book of O.P-1 on 27.1.2013 and the allotment of kerosene oil was also made to O.P-1 since March, 2003. But, the complainant did not turn up to withdraw the kerosene oil and ,therefore, the allotment of kerosene oil was lawfully cancelled by them. According to them, the complainant is responsible for cancellation of allotment of kerosene oil and for such cancellation of allotment of kerosene oil they i.e O.P nos. 2 and 3 cannot be blamed in any way.
In the face of submission and counter- submission of the parties as pointed out above, it is to be seen whether the cancellation of allotment of kerosene oil by the O.P nos. 2 and 3 has been made in proper way. It is undisputed fact that the complainant has been deprived of getting supply of kerosene oil since 17.1.2013. Also admitted is the fact that the complainant has written to O.P-2 on 11.6.2013 and 17.6.2013 and thereby he has placed his grievance before the O.P-2 to the effect that he has not been getting the supply of kerosene oil since 17.1.2013. In the circumstances, it is bounden duty of the Public Officers i.e O.P nos. 2 and 3 to inform the complainant that his ration cards have been transferred to the O.P-1 and that he is entitled to draw kerosene oil from the authorized shop of O.P-1. But , no such intimation has been given to the complainant by the O.P nos. 2 and 3 ,although the complainant has been persistently knocking time again at the doors of the O.P nos. 2 and 3 demanding redressal of his grievances. Without any information to the complainant, it is not proper on the part of the O.P nos. 2 and 3 to cancel the allotment of kerosene oil . They should have at least given an intimation to the complainant before proceeding with the cancellation of allotment of kerosene oil . But they have not done that thing. They should have considered the matter with utmost sincerity ,as it is found that the complainant has been running from pillar to post for getting a few drop of kerosene oil since a long time back. On the other hand, it is found on perusal of the averment of O.P nos. 2 and 3 as written in the written statement filed by them that O.P nos. 2 and 3 have cherished a grudge against the complainant ,which a Public Servant ought not to have nourished. A blame has been cast upon the complainant by the O.P nos.2 and 3 and they are seen to have gone to such an extent that they have stated in the written statement that the O.P-1/dealer would not go to the house of the complainant for supply of kerosene oil (vide para 1, page 4 of written statement filed by O.P-2 and 3). This version of the O.P nos. 2 and 3 reflects how cantankerous they are in their mind against the complainant. The complainant wants nothing but kerosene oil from govt. dealer at controlled price. O.P nos. 2 and 3 are the govt. officers engaged to see like watch dogs that the kerosene oil is properly distributed to each and every person entitled to have it. They could have allowed the prayer of the complainant as soon as they got the application of the complainant on 11.6.2013 , 17.6.2013 , 12.9.2013 and, thereafter on 11.12.2013. Their duty is to ear the grievance of the public with utmost care, sincerity and sympathy and then to dispose of the said complaint without giving any upper hand to technical procedure, because kerosene oil is one of the essential commodities of every house hold. But, what have these officers done? They have persisted with their habitual inertia. They are laughing in the sleeve to see the complainant suffering from mental pain and bodily harassment day after day for his legitimate quota of kerosene oil from his nearby dealer i.e O.P-1. Complainant is not expected to move to their office day by day to collect the fate of his applications. The O.P nos. 2 & 3 should have given an intimation to the complainant that the ration cards have been transferred to O.P-1 and that he can draw kerosene oil , as of right, from the shop of O.P-1.
It is the version of the O.P nos. 2 and 3 that O.P-1 was directed to supply kerosene oil on 9 cards of the complainant. But , no copy of such order is placed on record by those O.Ps. There is every doubt that such order was ever passed by O.P nos. 2 & 3. O.P nos. 2 and 3 rely mostly upon the entry of Ration Cards in the log. Book of O.P-1. Such an entry can be made there at any time by them in collusion with O.P-1. We feel constrained to pass such remark against the O.Ps, having
noticed the cantankerous approach of the O.P nos. 2 and 3 , as pointed out above and the inability of those O.Ps to produce the order of kerosene supply before the Forum.
Further, the doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem has been thrown into the wind by O.P nos. 2 and 3. They have not given an opportunity of being heard to the complainant before the cancellation of his alleged allotment of kerosene oil. A person’s right cannot be curtailed at mere drop of hat. To cancel the allotment of complainant without giving him opportunity of being heard is an act of gross illegality on the part of the O.P nos. 2 and 3 and to save themselves from this, they are now seen to tread on complainant’s toes by saying that the fault lies with the complainant as he did not approach the dealer and that the dealer, i.e.O.P-1 is not supposed to supply kerosene oil at the house of the complainant.
Upon the facts and circumstances as discussed above, it is found that cancellation of allotment of kerosene oil of the complainant without giving him any notice is not only a fault but an illegality on the part of the O.P nos. 2 and 3 and as such it is an act of gross deficiency in service on their part. The complainant has certainly undergone harassment and tremendous mental agony for not getting supply of kerosene oil throughout the months and, therefore, he is entitled to get relief which is awarded as hereunder.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O,.Ps with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The O.P nos. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to issue an order so that the kerosene oil is made available to the complainant from the kerosene shop of O.P-1 on the basis of ration cards of the complainant with intimation of such order dispatched to him at his home by special messenger along with all the ration cards in original, if produced before them with the application for transfer of ration cards, within a month of this order, failing which, they will have to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant . Such compensation will be paid by their concerned department and the concerned department is at liberty to recover such compensation amount from the O.P nos. 2 and 3 by deducting the same from their salary.
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to send a copy of the judgment free of cost at once to the parties concerned by speed post. President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
