D.o.F: 1/03/2010 D.o.O:28/09/2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.49/10 Dated this, the 28th day of September 2010. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER P.K.Thomas, S/o.P.K.Bousalli, } Complainant Paingotu Veedu,R/at Koliyar, Parappa.Po.Kasaragod (In person) 1. Krishi Assistant Director, Kanhangad. } Opposite parties 2. Krishi officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kodom Belur, Attenganam.Po.671531. (In person) ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT In nutshell case of the complainant is as follows: Complainant became a member of a job scheme introduced by the Govt. of Kerala. Name of the Scheme was ' Scheme of special job for one lakh youths in agricultural sector. complainant remitted ` 1100/- towards the membership vide membership No.14/01/03 67/945. But he did not get any privileges / benefits. In 2005 he got an information from the agricultural office that those who withdraw from the scheme will be paid ` 5000/-. Accordingly complainant withdrew from the scheme and he was informed that within 15 days the promised amount would be paid. But it is not paid till date. Hence the complaint claiming a compensation of ` 50,000/-. 2. Opposite parties filed version. According to them as per GO(MS) No.123/2003 dt.25/8/06 Govt. announced ` 5000/- to those who suo moto retire from the scheme. Accordingly complainant submitted his application for the retirement benefit and the same is forwarded to the Principal Agricultural Officer, Kasaragod as per letter No. KB 21/05-06 dtd.2/1/06 and the same is forwarded on 14/2/06 for further action. But the amount is not so far received from the Govt. The opposite parties are unable to pay the amount that can be paid only if the Govt. sanctions the claim. 3. Complainant examined as PW1 Ext.A1 the membership book is marked. Both sides heard. Document perused. 4. Complainant submitted that the non-payment caused him much loss and now he is deprived of the money as well as the benefits provided under the scheme. 5. The non payment of the amount definitely constitutes definiciency in service and this case is one of the best example that confirms that our public functionaries are still remains as the store houses of inaction. There is no explanation forth coming from opposite parties that why there is inordinate delay in repaying the amount, who has to sanction the amount and what are the steps they taken to pay the amount to the complainant that he is legitimately entitled. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Luknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta reported in III 1993 CPJ 1(SC) has held that " In a modern society no authority can arrogate itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street are made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction of public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility of the system. Public administration, no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion, which shields the action of administrative authority. But when it is found that exercise of discretion was malafide and the complainant is entitled for compensation for mental and physical harassment. The officer can no more claim to be under protective cover" ……….. It was never more necessary than today when even social obligations are regulated by grant of statutory powers. The test of permissive form of grant are over. It is now imperative and implicit in the excise of power that it should be for the sake of society. When the court directs payments of the damages or compensation against the state the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the taxpayer’s money, which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. It is, therefore, necessary that the commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should be further direct the department concern to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries” . In view of the above judgment we are of the view that complainant is entitled for a reasonable compensation also. Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to take expeditious steps with their authority to sanction the claim of the complainant. At any rate the amount of ` 5000/- shall be paid to the complainant within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of order. Opposite parties shall also liable to pay ` 2000/- towards the cost of these proceedings that they can claim from their higher authorities who bound to settle the claim. Failing which 5000/- will carry interest @ 12% from the date of complaint till payment. Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER PRESIDENT Ext.A1- membership book PW1- P.K.Thomas,-complainant eva Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | , | | 
