BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA No. 1098 OF 2013 AGAINST CC No.616 OF 2011

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD

     Between :

Ginne Malleswara Rao

S/o. G.Veeraswamy, aged 62 years,

Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.No.16-11-20/7/1/630,

First Floor, Saleem Nagar,

Hyderabad – 500036.                                          ….Appellant / Complainant

AND

1. The Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Station Road, Hyderabad – 500001.

2. The Incharge Officer,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Station Road,

Hyderabad – 500001.                       ....Respondents / Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant     : Party in person

Counsel for the Respondents / Opposite Parties  : Sri S.Prabhakar Reddy

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla        …      President

&

Sri Patil Vithal Rao  …                  Member

,

Friday the Fifteenth day of September

Two thousand Seventeen

Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).

                                                         ***

The Appellant herein had filed a case in C.C.no.616/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum - III, Hyderabad (for brevity, ‘the District Forum’), against the Respondents herein and obtained the order dated 04.03.2013 directing them to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs within 30 days from the date of the orders.  For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereinafter, as arrayed in the complaint.    

2.         After passing of the above said order, it was dispatched to the Opposite Parties by the District Forum on 25.03.2013.  However, the complainant handedover a copy of the said order to the Opposite Party no.1 on 10.05.2013.  Thereafter  on the instructions of the Opposite Party no.1, the Opposite Party no.2 sent a cheque dated 20.05.2013 in the name of the District Forum for a sum of Rs.2,000/- to comply with the direction in the case.  The said cheque was received by the District Forum on 22.05.2013 and deposited it in the S.B. Account on 03.06.2013.
3.         When the things stood thus, the complainant filed E.A.Sr.no.1306 /2013 in C.C.no.616/2011 on 27.05.2013 before the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’)to punish the Opposite Parties on the premise that they failed to pay to him the decretal amount within stipulated period of 30 days.  The said application was returned with some office objection on 10.06.2013.  The complainant re-submitted the same with compliance on 18.06.2013.  Thereafter, on hearing the complainant, the District Forum passed the impugned order on 03.07.2013 rejecting the application with costs of Rs.500/- payable to the fund of the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad by treating it as a vexatious application.
4.         The complainant challenged the order noted above, by way of the present Appeal on the grounds, interalia, that, he being an advocate and officer of the court, brought to the notice of the District Forum about it’s deficiency in service in receiving the cheque, referred supra, with a delay of 125 days without verifying the record properly.  Further there was a delay of 25 days in dispatching a copy of the order in C.C.no.616/2011 passed by it and that when it was brought to the notice of the District Forum, he was penalized with Rs.500/-and thus defended the Opposite Parties by way of passing of the impugned order illegally and that as such the same is liable to be set aside by allowing the present Appeal.

6.             Perused the impugned order and written arguments.  Heard the complainant, who is an advocate and party in person and also the counsel for the Respondents.
7.   Now the point for consideration is that:

          whether the impugned order is erroneous and illegal and that such liable to be set aside?        

8. Point : We have perused the material evidence placed on record and culled out the facts noted in para nos.1 & 2 supra, which are not in dispute.  The only dispute is an alleged illegality in passing of the impugned order by the Forum below by rejecting the application EASR.No.1306/2013 and imposing costs of Rs.500/-.
9.          The impugned order consists of two components, firstly rejection of the application filed under Section 27 of the Act, 1986 and secondly, imposing of the costs of Rs.500/-.

          With regard to the first limb of the matter it is to be considered that both the Opposite Parties are officers of BSNL of the government of India undertaking.  The complainant had filed the complaint in C.C.No.616/2011 seeking compensation of Rs.1,000/- with costs.  After due enquiry into the matter, the District Forum allowed the complaint, not only for the entire prayed amount of compensation of Rs.1,000/- but also awarded costs of Rs.1,000/-.  In all it’s fairness, the BSNL Department did not prefer any Appeal against the said order but complied with the same, but with some delay.  Even in this regard, it is pertinent to note that there was delay from the office of the Section of the District Forum in dispatching the copies of the orders to the Opposite Parties.  This is, at the most, an administration lapse but the same cannot be challenged in a judicial proceedings of the present nature.  Unfortunately, the complainant attributed deficiency in service in this regard on the part of the forum below.  At any stretch of imagination, it cannot constitute such a deficiency under the provisions of the Act, 1986.  Further, soon after receipt of a copy of the order in C.C.no.616/2011, the Opposite Party no.1 gave instructions to the Opposite Party no.2 and in compliance of the same, the Opposite Party no.2 processed the matter and issued the cheque.  It is to be noted that the Opposite Party no.1 office is located at Hyderabad and the Opposite Party no.2 office is located at Srikakulam.  It is a matter of common knowledge about the procedural delays in the government offices and that at times we have to take cognigence and consider it.  Having regard to all the facts and circumstances and also the stature of the complainant as an advocate, he too ought to have responded fairly to the gesture of the Opposite Parties by accepting the awarded amount, instead of resorting to Section -27 of the Act, 1986 by way of the present frivolous litigation.  Very recently the Hon’ble National Commission in, Rajasthan Housing Board and another Vs.Satish Kumar Budaniya,III(2017) CPJ 46(NC) held that a litigation involving a paltry amount cannot be entertained by the Fora.  This finding was based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramina Bank Vs. Khazani and another, IV(2012) CPJ -5(SC).  In this decision it was observed as under:-

            “2.  Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to Courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers’ skin.  Judicial system is overburdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. …………………………………….In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this Court. ……………………………. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.

                    We have no hesitation to take umbrage of these have authoritative pronouncements as binding precedents to support our view.    

10. We have given careful consideration to the impugned order.  The District Forum has considered all the factual aspects and circumstances with regard to the delay in compliance of the order passed in C.C.no.616/2011.  In our considered opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the Forum below is just and reasonable.  But at the same time, with regard to the second limb of the aspect, the District Forum ought not to have imposed costs of Rs.500/- and thereby maintained the balance without any tilt.  In this view of the matter, we hold that the impugned order needs modification by setting it aside to the extent of imposing of costs of Rs.500/-.  With this modification the Appeal is fit to be allowed in part.  Accordingly, the impugned order with regard to the rejection of EASR no.1306/2013 is hereby up held and confirmed and the imposition of costs of Rs.500/- is set aside. 
11. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by modifying the impugned order in the light of the aforesaid observations.  Having regard to the nature of the dispute and in the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. 

      PRESIDENT    MEMBER       

      Dt.15.09.2017