BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. , MEMBER – II CC. 28 / 2009 TUESDAY THE 3rd DAY OF JANUARY 2012. Janagi, W/o. Late Panchatcharam, No.7/3, 2nd North Street, Dr. MGR Nagar, Katpadi, Vellore -7. … Complainant. - Vs – 1. ADM Officer, M/s. NCC GP HQ Madras “A” Canteen, C/o. NCC GP HQ Madras “A”, 28, Dr. Alagappa Road, Chennai – 84. 2. The Manager, M/s. ATNK & K Area ESM Canteen, Army Veterans Welfare Complex, VIT Post, Vellore – 632 014. … Opposite parties. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 26.12.11 in the presence of Thiru. J. Venkatramani, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. G. Seralathan, Advocate for the opposite parties-1 & 2, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant’s husband Panchatcharam, Army NO.1280147 was discharged from the army on 1st January 1984. Being a army men he gets his subsidies provisions at No.1 of the opposite parties till February 2009. He died on 2.3.09. After the death of her husband on 4.3.09 she lost her discharge book, pension book, canteen card and other papers at the old bus stand, Vellore. The Vellore North Police Station have registered the complaint as a petition on 10.3.09 and issued the CSR No.106/2009 on 10.3.09. The records have been lost was intimated to the army authorities and with the Xerox copy she has applied for all the duplicate documents. An indemnity bond was requested and she has obtained the indemnity bond from the notaried public and sent to army headquarters. With the available copies the opposite parties have decided to issue the smart card to the complainant to receive the provisions at Vellore. The legal heir ship certificate along with the necessary application for the issue of smart card application No.118/2009 was submitted and a sum of Rs.100/- as a fee was received by the competent authority, for the issue of smart card. She was directed appear before the 1st opposite party for the issue of no objection certificate and the same was issued on 29.6.09. The 2nd opposite party is dodging for issue of the smart card under the pretext that the 3rd opposite party has not sent any intimation and the smart card is withheld by the 1st opposite party. The expenses so far spent to get the smart card will be around Rs.5000/- including the visit to Chennai every day. The death fund of Rs.5000/- should be immediately given to the widowed lady as per the rules of the army. Even that was not paid. There is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore the complainant prays this forum for directing the opposite parties to issue smart card at once and to pay a compensation of Rs.80,000/- for the deficiency of service. And to pay the death fund of Rs.5000/- which is payable to the complainant immediately after death and to pay the expenses incurred a sum of Rs.5000/- to get the smart card and to pay the cost of the proceedings of Rs.5000/-. 2. The averments in the counter filed by the 1st opposite party and adopted by the 2nd opposite party are as follows: The opposite parties does not admit any of the averments contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein and the complainant put to strict proof of the same. The complainant claim regarding the status of No.1280147Ex Gnr Late M. Panchatacharam is fully agreed with. Late Ex Gnr. M. Panchataharam was the member of HQ NCC Gp H! “A” and availed canteen facilitated till his death. He died on 02 March 2009 but not on 04 March 2009 as mentioned in the complaint. The complainant had asked for canteen card on 20 July 2009 and submitted an order No.30655 issued by Assistant Director, DSS & A Board, Vellore along with a copy of service particulars. There were no death certificate and NOC from previous canteen i.e. HQ NCC Gp “A” canteen found attached. Still her request was considered and started the office procedures. ATNK & K Area ESM canteen, Vellore Canteen card and Index card were prepared immediately and the complainant signed the same. On 21 July 2009 the complainant came along with her son and submitted a written application dt. 21 July 2009 enclosed with copies of CSR NO.2220706, 106/09, Police certificate and an affidavit dt. 20 July 2009 stating that the smart card of the deceased husband was lost on 4 March 2009 at Vellore Bus Stand. The complainants statement made on 20 July 2009 was conflicting with the written application submitted on 21 July 2009. Hence, complainant was questioned about it. Immediately the complainant flashed a letter issued by HQ NCC GP “A” bearing letter No. URC/4480/09 dated 24 June 2009 which clearly states that the smart card of the deceased husband was verified and physically on 24 June 2009. The ladies photo on smart card did not tally or resemble to with the complainant. Thus the fact about the second wife and existence of the smart card came to light which the complainant had concealed from the authorities of Vellore. So the complainant was asked in writing to clarify the anomalies vide letter No.2047/VC/II dated 21 July 2009. Also NCC Gp HQ “A” Chennai was asked to intimate the disposal of the smart card No.LB 05 0205559175) T 00 which was physically verified on 24 June 2009. The canteen card issue process was incomplete for want of smart card of the deceased husband and clarifications from the complainant. Thereafter the complainant neither came in person to explain nor communicated by post. In the meantime the copies of the smart card and initial application were received from HQ NCC Gp “A” and found different lady with the deceased husband. The fact about the existence of the smart card was established. 3. The smart card application was incomplete for want of the old smart card which was not lost as stated by the complainant. The physical existence of the card with one of the wives was confirmed on 24 June 2009. Hence the complainant did not loose the smart card on 4 March 2009. The complainant is one of the two wives held by the deceased husband. The complainants claim about the loss of smart card is absolutely false. The Army authorities immediately on receiving the death message send their representatives to pay the floral tribute and pay the funeral grant without delay which will be vouched by any living army men. In this case the fight between two wives to establish supremacy over the rights made them forget to pay the honour due to the deceased Ex-soldier. Hence the claim for compensation is frivolous and vexatious. A genuine wife can claim in writing the funeral grant even now through proper means if not claimed already. It is most respectfully prayed this Forum may be pleased to dismiss the above complaint and pass necessary orders. 4. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 5. Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B13 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 6. POINT NO. a) The complainant contented that the complainant submitted an application for issue of smart card along with the necessary documents with fee to the 2nd opposite party for the issue of no objection certificate on 29.6.09. But the 2nd opposite party is dodging for issue of the smart card under the pretext that the 3rd opposite party has not sent any intimation and the smart card is withheld by the 1st opposite party. Hence, the acts of opposite party-2 amounts to deficiency in service. 7. The opposite parties contented that the complainant statement made on 20 July 2009 was conflicting with the written application submitted on 21 July 2009, and the lady photo on smart card did not tally or resemble to with the complainant. Thus the fact about the second wife and existence of the smart card came to light which the complainant had concealed from the authorities of Vellore. So the complainant was asked in writing to clarify the anomalies vide letter NO.2047/VC/II dt.21.July 2009. The complainant is one of the two wives held by the deceased husband. The complainants claim about the loss of smart card is absolutely false. Hence the claim for compensation is frivolous and vexatious. 8. It is admitted facts of the parties that the late Ex Gnr M. Panchatcharam was the member of HQ NCC Gp H! “A” and availed canteen facilities till his death. After t he death of M. Panchatcharam the complainant had asked canteen card on 20 Jul 2009 since it was lost. The complainant was asked to submit the application duly filled along with the old smart card of the deceased husband. Accordingly the complainant submitted a written application enclosed the copies of CSR No.2220706, Police certificate and an affidavit stating that the smart card of the deceased husband was lost on 4 March 2009 at Vellore bus stand, on 21 July 2009. The complainant has not denied the contention of the opposite parties that the lady photo on the old smard card did not tally with the complaint and the physical existence of the card with one of the wives was confirmed on 24 June 2009, therefore, the complainant was asked to clarify the anomalies vide letter No.2047/VC/II, dt. 21. July 2009. 9. The opposite parties have stated in their proof affidavit that in the present case the fight between the two wives to establish supremacy over the rights of the Ex. Army Thiru. Panchatcharam. Further the complainant filed a suit O.S.NO.494/2009, ADM, Vellore was set exparte on 29.3.10, on the basis of decree this respondent given smart card NO.LB 05200555917500T01 on 25 November 2010 to the complainant and the same was acknowledged by her. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in any respect. The complainant has not denied the contention of the 1st opposite party that on the basis of the exparte decree in O.S.NO.494 / 2009 passed on 29.3.10, the 1st opposite party given a smart card No. LB 05200555917500T01 on 25.11.2010 to the complainant and the same was acknowledged by her. Therefore it is clear that the complainant’s grievance was solved by the opposite parties. 10. According to the opposite parties that the physical existence of the old smart card deceased Panchatcharam reveals that the lady photo on smart card did not tally or resemble to with the complainant. So the complainant was asked in writing to clarify the anomalies vide letter No.2047/VC/II, dt.21.July 2009. Thereafter, the complainant neither came in person to explain nor communicated by post. In the meantime the copies of the smart card and initial application were received from HQ NCC GP “A” and found different lady with the deceased husband. But the complainant did not take any steps to clarify the anomalies mentioned in the said letter NO.2047/VC/II, dt. 21.July 2009. Thereafter, the complainant filed a suit in O.S. No.494/2009 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Vellore, which was set exparte on 29.3.10 and on the basis of the exparte Decree, the 1st opposite party given a smart card NO. LB 05200555917500T01 on 25.11.2010 to the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 11. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 & Ex.B1 to Ex.B13, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 12. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 13. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 3rd day of January 2012 . MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 21.7.09 - X-copy of letter by the complainant to the opposite party-2. Ex.A2- 21.7.09 - X-copy of Receipt. Ex.A3- 20.7.09 - X-copy of Affidavit. Ex.A4- -- - X-copy of Police certificate. Ex.A5- 10.3.09 - X-copy of FIR. Ex.A6- 21.7.09 - X-copy of Smart Card application. Ex.A7- 24.7.09 - X-copy of Heir ship Certificate. Ex.A8- -- - X-copy of service particulars. Ex.A9- -- - X-copy of I.D. Card. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: Ex.B1- -- - X-copy of Canteen Card issue letter. Ex.B2- -- - X-copy of Index card ATNK & K Area Esm canteen, Vellore. Ex.B3- -- - X-copy of Joint Photograph. Ex.B4- -- - X-copy of Canteen Smart card application form. Ex.B5- 21.7.09 - X-copy of letter from the complainant to the 2nd OP. Ex.B6- -- - X-copy of complaint. Ex.B7- -- - X-copy of police certificate. Ex.B8- -- - X-copy of affidavit of the complainant. Ex.B9- 24.6.09 - X-copy of letter from the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ex.B10- 21.7.09 - X-copy of application for smart card – transferred from Chennai By 2nd opposite party. Ex.B11- 23.7.09 - X-copy of application for new canteen smart card (widow) by 1st opposite party. Ex.B12- -- - X-copy of canteen smart card. Ex.B13- -- - X-copy of canteen smart card application form. MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [HONABLE MR. Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT | | 
