DATE OF FILING :11/08/17
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 27th day of February 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO. 171/17
Between
Complainant : 1 . Marykutty , W/o James,
Azheekal House, Chempakappara P.O.,
Pallikkanam, Idukki District.
2 . James, S/o Xavier,
Azheekal House, Chempakappara P.O.,
Pallikkanam, Idukki District.
3 . Mercy Roy, W/o Roy,
Kochukudiyil House,
Uppukandam P.O.,
Nathukallu, Idukki District.
4 . Roy, S/o Jacob,
Kochukudiyil House,
Uppukandam P.O.,
Nathukallu, Idukki District.
5 . Karthyayani, W/o Kesavan,
Chakkurumbel House,
Erattayar P.O., Idukki District.
6 . Rosamma, W/o Kuriakose,
Muthuplackal House,
Eettithope P.O., Idukki District.
7 . Jessy, W/o Shajan,
Punnaplackal House,
Vazhavara P.O., Idukki District.
8 . Shajan, S/o Joseph
Punnaplackal House,
Vazhavara P.O., Idukki District.
9 . Bindhu, W/o Somarajan,
Thadathel House,
Santhigram P.O.,Idukki District.
10 . Somarajan, S/o Gangadharan,
Thadathel House,
Santhigram P.O.,Idukki District.
(Cont....2)
-2-
11 . Mary, W/o Joseph,
Kochupurackal House,
Santhigram P.O.,
Idukki District.
12 . Joseph, S/o Devasia,
Kochupurackal House,
Santhigram P.O., Idukki District.
13 . Sarada, W/o Sasidharan,
Plamoottil House,
Idinjamala P.O., Idukki District.
14 . Sasidharan, S/o Gopalan,
Plamoottil House,
Idinjamala P.O., Idukki District.
15 . Saly, W/o Joseph,
Thazathuveettil House,
Nellippara P.O., Idukki District.
16 . Joseph, S/o Chacko,
Thazathuveettil House,
Nellippara P.O., Idukki District.
17 . Mariyamma, W/o Cheriyan,
Mannoor House,
Chempakappara P.O., Idukki District.
18 . Cheriyan, S/o Late Scaria,
Mannoor House,
Chempakappara P.O., Idukki District.
19 . Ponnamma, W/o Gopi,
Kanakkalil House,
Idinjamala P.O., Idukki District.
20 . Gopi, S/o Krishnan,
Kanakkalil House,
Idinjamala P.O., Idukki District.
21 . Lucy, W/o George,
Kunnumpurathu House,
Chempakappara P.O., Idukki District.
22 . George, S/o Sebastian,
Kunnumpurathu House,
Chempakappara P.O., Idukki District.
23 . Mariyakutty, W/o Mathew,
Edappadikarottu House,
Ezhukumvayal P.O., Idukki District.
(Cont....3)
-3-
24 . Mathew, S/o Kurian,
Edappadikarottu House,
Ezhukumvayal P.O., Idukki District.
25 . Lisamma, W/o Sibichan,
Vazhakkalathill House,
Ezhukumvayal P.O., Idukki District.
26 . Sibichan, S/o Mathew,
Vazhakkalathill House,
Ezhukumvayal P.O., Idukki District.
27 . Suja, W/o Tomy,
Moovelil House,
Chempakappara P.O., Idukki District.
28 . Tomy, S/o Joseph,
Moovelil House,
Chempakappara P.O., Idukki District.
29 . Mary, W/o Babu,
Vettukallel House,
Erattayar P.O., Idukki District.
30 . V.M.Babu, S/o Mani,
Vettukallel House,
Erattayar P.O., Idukki District. (All of them by Adv: Benny Joseph)
And
Opposite Party : 1 . The Block Development Officer,
Kattappana Block Office,
Kattappana.
2 . Erattayar Grama Panchayath,
Erattayar P.O.,
Represented by its Secretary.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainants is that,
Complainants are the consumers and beneficiaries of opposite parties and they are selected members of Indira Avas Yogana (IAY), house construction scheme of Kerala Government., implementing through the opposite parties and have executed necessary agreements with the opposite parties. As per
(Cont....4)
-4-
the scheme norms, complainants having their own landed properties and are entitled to get the revised full amount of Rs.2 Lakhs each for the construction of dwelling houses. Thus each complainants executed two agreements in this regard.
Complainants numbers 1,3,5,6,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,27 and 29 are the beneficiaries of the scheme and other complainants such as 2,4,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28 and 30 are their husbands and are the guarantors of the said agreement. The said complainants each had granted an amount of Rs.1,80,875/- from the opposite parties for the construction, and balance amount of Rs.19,125/- per head is pending. Complainants are entitled to get the full amount in time and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are bound to recoup the damages caused to the complainants due to the delay in sanctioning the said balance amount.
Complainants further averred that the opposite parties wilfully failed to pay the same even after repeated demands. Complainants along with others filed so many complaints before the opposite parties 1 and 2, but all their efferts were in vein. The date of last payment of the balance amount was in December 2014, for that complainants filed a petition before the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Kattappana, against the opposite parties. Since the opposite parties were absent before the Taluk Legal Service Committee, the Honourable Chairman of Taluk Legal Service Committee, direct them to proceed the matter legally with assistance of legal aid counsel appointed from the Adalath. Complainants further stated that all the time they are prosecuting their grievance vigilantly before various Forums with their limited knowledge for getting the allotted balance amount. But the opposite parties are protracting the matter of payment. This act of the opposite parties are gross deficiency in their service. Against this the complainants filed this complaint for directing the opposite parties to sanction Rs.19,125/- being the balance grant amount per head to the beneficiaries complainants and also direct them to pay Rs. 5000/- each to the beneficiary complainants towards compensation and other consequent reliefs.
Upon notice opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed detailed reply version. In their version the first opposite party, The Block Development Officer, Kattappana, admitted the sanctioning of the amount
(Cont....5)
-5-
discussed in the complaint and the agreement of the complainants with the first opposite party. The first opposite party further contended that as the scheme was progressing, the Sate Government have enhanced the amount from 75000/- to 2 Lakhs in the year 2012 and has instructed the Block Development Officer to take necessary steps for the payment of the enhanced amount to the beneficiaries and has ordered that, this additional amount should be met by the Grama, Block, District Panchayaths. Consequently the first opposite party has communicated the matter to various Grama Panchayath, Block Panchayath committees and District Panchayath, Idukki, for earmarking the fund required for them by any means. All the said agencies complied to this and did accordingly, except the second opposite party, the Erattayar Grama Panchayath. Later on, the first opposite party has issued a special notice to the second opposite party, informing him the urgency to earmark and hand over the additional amount required for releasing the beneficiaries, who executed agreement with the first opposite party. These letter also left unanswered and the first opposite party could not realise the amount necessary for release to the complainants. Matter being so, the first opposite party has not committed any deliberate laxity or negligence in this matter and the second opposite party is solely liable for that.
At the same time the second opposite party in their reply version specifically contended that, the Panchayath given their share in the initial stage, where as the amount was allowed as Rs.75000/-. Through a Government Order dated 17/10/12 No: 49746/DD/1/2012 this financial aid was enhanced from 75000/- to 2.5 Lakhs for General and scheduled class group and 2.5 lakhs for Scheduled Tribes classes. As per the order, the balance amount is to be borne by the District Block and Grama Panchayath in the ratio 25:50:25. On the basis of the ratio the share of the Erattayar Grama Panchayath is to be met or handed over for their beneficiaries was Rs.6,56,250/-. Due to deficiency in funds or poor financial condition the Panchayath Committee held on 17/05/14 was decided to restrain from paying this amount. Again this issues was taken up in the Panchayath meeting held on 12/10/17 and the prior decision is again confirmed and due to insufficiency of fund they are decided to withdrawn from paying this amount still. To convince this matter, the second opposite party produced the minutes of the Panchayath Committe along with the reply version. This matter is reported by
(Cont....6)
-6-
the second opposite party to the Forum also. The matter being so, there is no deficiency in service is happened from the side of the second opposite party.
Evidence adduced by the complainants by way of documents which are marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P6. Ext.P1 is the copy of beneficiaries list obtained through RT1 Act, Ext.P2 is the order from Legal Service Authority, Kattappana, Ext.P3 is the copy of order sheet in AP No.1076/14 of Udumbanchola TLSC, Ext.P4 is the reply given by the State Information Officer, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 are the copy of agreement of the IAY Scheme executed by the complainants in favour of the first opposite party. No oral evidence is adduced from the complainants part. From the defence side the second opposite party produced the resolution of Grama Panchayath committee along with the copy of minutes.
Heard both sides in detail,
The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The Points:- We have heard the counsels in detailed and gone through the records on evidence . The learned counsel for the complainants vehemently argued by sticking on Ext.P4, the reply of the State Information Officer, that except the second opposite party, Erattayar Grama Panchayath, all other Panchayath coming under the first opposite party, complied the directions and handed over them respective share to their beneficiaries. Erattayar Grama Panchayath committee is wilfully withheld their amount, even though this Panchayath having sufficient funds. It is the collective duty of both opposite parties to provide the amount to the listed beneficiaries. The act of withhelding the amount which is legally entitled to get the beneficiaries amounts to gross deficiency in their service .
On the other hand the learned counsel for the first opposite party vehemently argued that they issued necessary notice to the second opposite party repeatedly and requested them to transfer the respective share to the beneficiaries, along with other Panchayath Secretaries. But this letters were left unanswered and hence the first opposite party could not realise the
(Cont....7)
-7-
amount necessary for release it to the complainants. The learned counsel further stated that necessary orders to the second opposite party may be issued from the Forum to hand over the requested amount.
On going through the exhibits and points of arguments the Forum is of a considered view that the share which the complainant beneficiaries are entitled to get is from the second opposite party. At the same time the second opposite party committee decided to withdrawn from allotting their respective share due to the insufficiency of funds. As per the resolution passed by the Panchayath Committee of second opposite party, the prior decision is confirmed. At this juncture it is very pertinent to note that as per the Ext.P4 information, except the second opposite party, Grama Panchayath all other Panchayaths coming under the first opposite party allotted their respective shares to their beneficiaries. Except the contention in the reply version and Panchayath Committee minutes, no specific clarification is given by the second opposite party to convince the Forum that why they took such a decision. No evidence is produced by the second opposite party to substantiate that, what is their annual income and expenditure. No budget details are produced. In such a situation the Forum is not in a position to believe the version of the second opposite party. Other wise the second opposite party should produce clear and concrete evidence to show that how they managing their fund and whether it is for the benefit of general public.
Under the above said circumstances the Forum directs the second opposite party, the Erattayar Grama Panchayath to consider the claim of the complainants as a primary issue and allocate an amount of Rs.656250/- in the current year, being the share of the second opposite party, which is to be allotted to the beneficiaries /complainants in this case. Failing which the complainants are at liberty to initiate further proceedings against the second opposite party as per the relevant section of the Consumer Protection Act. No cost or compensation is ordered.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of February, 2018.
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER
(Cont....8)
-8-
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
Nil
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - The copy of beneficiaries list obtained through RT1 Act
Ext.P2 - The order from Legal Service Authority, Kattappana
Ext.P3 -The copy of order sheet in AP No.1076/14 of Udumbanchola TLSC
Ext.P4 -The reply given by the State Information Officer
Ext.P5 - The copy of agreement of the IAY Scheme executed by the
complainants in favour of the first opposite party
Ext.P6 - The copy of agreement of the IAY Scheme executed by the
complainants in favour of the first opposite party
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
