IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.171/09 (Filed on 22.12.2009) Between: Ramachandra Kurup, Mannil Veedu, Kottanadu.P.O., Thiyadickal (Via), Pin - 689 586. …. Complainant. And: 1. Chandramohanan Nair, ARD 26, Ration Depot, Chalappalli.P.O., Pin – 689 586. 2. Taluk Supply Officer, Mallappally. 3. District Supply Officer, Pathanamthitta. …. Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant’s ration card had registered in 1st opposite party’s Ration shop years back. His ration card No. is 1306008077. Complainant is in both BPL and AAY category. He is eligible to get all the benefits of ration items. He is at the age of 80. 3. As per the AAY scheme of Union Government, complainant is entitled to get free monthly supply of 25 kg. of rice. But he has not yet got the same. Therefore he claims the past eight years benefit i.e.8x300 (25 x 12) = 2400 kg. of rice. The said quantity of rice was plundered by the opposite parties. Complainant filed petitions to 2nd opposite party from 2002 onwards. But no response. Hence this complaint for getting the price of 2400 kg. of rice i.e. 2400 x 15 = 36000, with compensation and cost. 4. Opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed separate versions. 5. 1st opposite party admitted that complainant is a ration card holder of his ARD No.26. Complainant’s wife has been purchasing the ration items usually. The Grain Bank Scheme of supplying 25 kg. of rice has implemented only for a few selected ARD’s in complainant’s Taluk. The authorities have not sanctioned the said scheme to 1st opposite party’s ARD. Complainant is claiming the benefits of Grain Bank Scheme. The bill produced by the complainant is from ARD No.27, where the ‘Grain Bank’ Scheme is going on. Therefore there is no deficiency on 1st opposite party’s part and he canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint. 6. 2nd opposite party admitted that complainant is a BPL category of AAY. AAY card holders are allowed 35 kg. of rice at the rate of Rs.2/- per month. On enquiry it is learned from complainant that, 25 kg. of rice has supplied without paying price in a nearby ARD. But 1st opposite party’s ARD has not selected to the said scheme. 10 ARD’s were included in the Grain Bank Scheme from the complainant’s Taluk. As per this scheme poor 40 AAY families were selected with the condition of return of grain within one year and given 1-quintal rice. If they failed to repay the rice within one year, they would be removed from the said scheme. Complainants nearby ARD No.27 had selected to the said scheme. The bill produced by the complainant is from the said ARD. 7. According to 2nd opposite party, complainant received the ration items from 1st opposite party’s ARD up to 11/09. After that complainant has not turned up due to the non-redressal of his complaint. The Grain Bank Scheme has implemented in Complainant’s Taluk on 7/09 onwards. But complainant’s claim for rice is from 2002 onwards. Therefore there is no basis for the complainant’s allegation. 8. According to 3rd opposite party, the Central and State Government have established ‘Grain Banks’ to improve the food security in chronically food scarce areas. The main objective of the scheme is to provide safeguard against starvation during the period of natural calamity. It is proposed that about 30-40 below poverty line/Anthyodaya Anna Yojana families may form a grain bank. One quintal of food grains is proposed to be provided per family as one time grant by Govt. of India. This is likely to meet about 3 months requirement of grains for an average family of five persons. Storing of food grains would be done in Bins or rural godowns. The quantity to be lent and period of repayment will be decided by the group themselves. The scheme provides for repayment in grain, within a period of one year without charging any interest thereon. The Dept. of Food and Civil Supplies of the State Govt. would monitor the implementation of the scheme at the state level and send consolidated quarterly progress report to the Govt. of India. 9. The scheme has two component viz. food component and cash component. Under the food, each grain bank will store one quintal of food grains per family for an average 40 below poverty line, which will be released as one time grant by the Central Govt. The cash component includes cost of weights and measures, cash component, store bins/godowns, etc. which would be released by the Central Govt. to State Govt. The supply co will lift 40 quintals of rice per Grain Bank from the nearest FCI Depots and made available in all Grain Banks selected by the District Supply Officer concerned. 10. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 11. Evidence of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1. Documents produced by him have been marked as Ext.A1 and A2. Apart from version, opposite parties did not adduce any evidence. After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard. 12. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the copy of complainant’s ration card. Ext.A2 is the copy of Village Grain Bank Bill of Abraham George issued from ARD No.27. 13. In order to prove the opposite parties evidence, they had not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. 14. On the basis of the contentions and averment of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. The complainant’s case is that he belongs to BPL as well as AAY category. Being a AAY family, he had denied the benefit of Grain Bank Scheme of supplying 25 kg. of rice free of cost per month. Opposite parties admitted that complainant belongs to BPL category, but the grain bank scheme has not been implemented in ARD No.26 where the complainant’s card is registered till now. Therefore there is no denial of benefit on their part. 15. On a perusal of material on record, it is learned that Ext.A2 Grain Bank bill has not issued from 1st opposite party’s ARD No.26. Ext.A2 has issued from nearby ARD No.27, in which the Grain Bank Scheme has implemented from 2009 onwards. Since the Grain Bank Scheme has implemented in 1st opposite party’s ARD No.26, he is unable to allow the same. Moreover complainant has failed to adduce any material either to prove his own case or to disprove the opposite parties contention. In this circumstance, we cannot find any bonafides in filing the complaint. Therefore, in the absence of better evidence, we are inclined to find any deficiency and hence complaint is not allowable. 16. In the result, complaint dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of May, 2010. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Ramachandra Kurup Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Photocopy of complainant’s ration card. A2 : Photocopy of Village Grain Bank Bill of Abraham George issued from ARD No.27. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Ramachandra Kurup, Mannil Veedu, Kottanadu.P.O., Thiyadickal (Via), Pin - 689 586. (2) Chandramohanan Nair, ARD 26, Ration Depot, Chalappalli.P.O., Pin – 689 586. (3) Taluk Supply Officer, Mallappally. (4) District Supply Officer, Pathanamthitta. (5) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
