STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Parkash Kaur aged 73 years wife of Sh.Harbhajan Singh R/o H.No782, Sector 78-A, Mohali.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

The Director, Primary, Education Department (AC), Punjab SCO No.34, Sector 17-E,Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Rakesh K.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

              Ms.Gurpreet Kaur, Assistant Director, Primary, Education Department, Punjab, on behalf of the respondent

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                  This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.06.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it accepted the complaint of the complainant (now appellant) and directed the OP (now respondent) as under:-

“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for interest on the amount of Rs.2,03,707/- which has been paid by OP on account of medical reimbursement. However, the complainant is certainly entitled for Rs.10000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, within one month  from the date of receipt of the certified copy”.

2.                  The  facts,  in  brief,  are  that the complainant, retired as Centre Head Teacher, from Govt. Primary School, Phase-2, Mohali, on 31.01.1996. The husband of the complainant, was operated upon, for knees, on different occasions, and, consequently, his knees were replaced. The complainant incurred expenditure of Rs.2,59,199/-, on the treatment of her husband. Thereafter, she lodged the claim for medical reimbursement, with the OP, by completing all the requisite formalities in 2007. Vide letter dated 19.10.2007 (Annexure C-2), the Block Education Officer, Mohali, intimated the complainant, that the OP would process the claim of  medical reimbursement. The complainant contacted the OP, a number of times, for release of the amount, but to no avail.  Ultimately, the complainant, served a legal notice dated 17.11.2009, upon the OP, but that too did not yield any result.  It was stated that, ultimately, one of the officials of the OP namely Sh.Gupta, informed the complainant that her claim had been sanctioned for Rs.2,03,707/- against Rs.2,59,199/-. It was further stated that despite furnishing her affidavit, the OP, failed to release the amount, aforesaid. It was further stated that the complainant was deprived of the amount of medical reimbursement, for a number of years, which was legally due to her, and she also suffered, a lot of physical harassment and mental agony. It was further stated that she also suffered financial loss, on account of her deprivation of the amount, aforesaid, illegally, which was due to her. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OP, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.               Initially, a duly authorized representative of the OP appeared, but, subsequently, none appeared on his behalf, as a result whereof, he (OP),  was proceeded against exparte on  03.05.2011.   

4.               The complainant led evidence, in support of her case.

5.               After hearing the Counsel for the complainant and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.               Feeling aggrieved, against the inadequacy of compensation and non-grant of interest, on the amount of Rs.2,03,707/-, which was, ultimately, paid to the complainant/appellant, on 20.05.2011, during the pendency of the complaint, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.               We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and Ms.Gurpreet Kaur, Assistant Director, Primary, Education Department, Punjab, on behalf of the respondent, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.               Undisputedly, the appellant/complainant, retired as Centre Head Teacher, from Government Primary School, Phase-2, Mohali, on 31.01.1996. There is also, no dispute, with regard to the factum, that the husband of the complainant, was operated upon, for knees, on different occasions and consequently, his knees were replaced. Vide Annexure C-1 dated 27.09.2007, the complainant lodged her claim with the Block Education Officer, Mohali No.3, Mohali, in the sum of R.2,59,199/-, which related to the expenditure, incurred by her, on the treatment of her husband. It is further evident, that vide letter Annexure C-2 dated 19.10.2007, the District Education Officer, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, informed the Block Primary Education Officer, Kharar-3, that since, the complainant was drawing her pension, from the Chandigarh Treasury, direct correspondence be made, with the Director, Primary, Education Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, for settlement of her claim. Once, the complainant, submitted the reimbursement claim of her husband, vide Annexure C-1 dated 27.09.2007, it was for the OP, to settle the same, at the earliest. A period of 4 months, could be said to be sufficient, for settling such a claim, but the Officers/Officials of the OP/respondent, sat over the matter, for a long number of years, hardly bothering about the plight of the complainant, their retired employee, and, ultimately, woke up from the deep slumber on 20.05.2011, when a sum of Rs.2,03,707/-, found legally due, out of Rs.2,59,199/-, relating to the medical reimbursement claim, submitted by the complainant, was paid to her. For more than 3 years, the complainant was made to run from pillar to post, for the purpose of settlement of her legal claim. Annexure C-3 letter dated 30.11.2007 and another letter dated 28.04.2009, were written by the complainant, to the OP, but his Officers/Officials adopted a very indifferent, and unsympathetic attitude, towards the complainant. Accordingly, she issued a legal notice dated 17.09.2009, Annexure C-4, and also wrote a letter dated 11.01.2010, Annexure C-9 to the OP. Had the amount of Rs.2,03,707/-, which was paid to the complainant, on 20.05.2011, been paid after the expiry of 4 months, from the date of submission of claim by her, would have deposited the same, in some bank, and earned interest thereon. Such an indifferent and callous attitude of the Government Officials, towards their ex-employee is wholly and completely condemnable. Since the complainant was deprived of the aforesaid amount, from 01.02.2008 (i.e. after four months of the submission of claim) to 20.05.2011, she was certainly entitled to interest, but the District Forum, was wrong, in denying the same to her. For such financial loss, in our opinion, the appellant is entitled to interest @9% p.a. from 01.02.2008 to 20.05.2011, on the amount of Rs.2,03,707/-. The order of the District Forum, requires modification to this extent.

9.               The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellant/complainant, is entitled to the enhancement of compensation, claimed by her, or not. It may be stated here, that she was only granted a meagre compensation, by the District Forum, ignoring the stark reality that she was harassed for a number of years. She is certainly entitled to the enhancement of compensation, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case. The interest is granted for financial loss, to the complainant, whereas, compensation is granted for physical harassment and mental agony. Both interest and compensation can, thus, be granted simultaneously. The compensation must commensurate with loss and injury suffered by the complainant. It should be fair and reasonable. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Surinder Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hosptial & Anr., IV(2010) CPJ 199 (NC).  In the instant case, the complainant underwent immense physical harassment and mental agony from 1.02.2008 to 20.05.2011, i.e. for more than 3 years, for no fault of her. One can certainly imagine the plight of a hapless lady, a senior citizen, aged about 73 years, who was forced to run from pillar to post, for more than 3 years, for the sanction and disbursement of her genuine claim. Even, after service of legal notice, upon the OP, he did not move, as a result whereof, the complainant perforce had to file a consumer complaint. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, referred to above, in our opinion, the compensation granted by the District Forum, is not fair and reasonable. The same is enhanced to 40,000/-.

10.            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, in public oriented departments, gets frustrated, and it erodes the credibility in the system. Public administration, no doubt, involves a vast amount of administrative discretion, which shields the action of administrative authority. But, where it is found, that exercise of discretion, was malafide, and the complainant is entitled to compensation, for mental and physical harassment, then the Officer/Official can no more take shelter of the protective cover. When a citizen seeks  to recover compensation, from a public authority, in respect of injury suffered by him/her for capricious exercise of power, then on the basis of it, a statutory obligation is cast upon the District Forum or the Commission, to award the same. When the District Forum or the Commission, directs compensation, against the State or its department, it is the tax payers 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 when the District Forum or the Commission, is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation, for harassment,  mental agony, or oppression,  on the basis of the material placed, on record, then, it should further direct the Department concerned 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 behavior, by dividing it proportionately, where   there   are   more   than   one   functionaries. If the Officer(s)/Official(s), found guilty of delay in processing the matter, is/are made personally responsible, then he/they would certainly improve their working, and shed their lethargic, lazy, apathetic, callous and indifferent attitude, and deal with the cases of the citizens promptly, which exercise shall certainly go a long way to restore the faith of the common man in the system. In that event, certainly the delay in settlement of the claims of citizens, shall be curtailed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the OP can be granted the liberty to recover the amount of interest, compensation and costs from the Officer(s)/Official(s), found guilty, for delay in dealing with the matter, in accordance with law.

11.            No other point was urged, on behalf of the parties.

12.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, is partly accepted, with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- , and the order of the District Forum, is modified in the following manner:-

                              i.   The respondent/OP, shall pay interest @9% p.a., on the amount of Rs.2.03,707/- from 01.02.2008 to 20.05.2011 (the latter date when the amount of Rs.2,03,707/-, was paid to the complainant, at the time of arguments in the complaint, before the District Forum).

                            ii.   The respondent/OP shall pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.40,000/-, instead of Rs.10,000/-, awarded by the District Forum.

                          iii.   The aforesaid payable amounts, shall be paid by the respondent/OP, within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, he (respondent/OP), shall be liable to pay the penal interest @10% p.a., instead of 9%,p.a., referred to above, till the date of realization, besides costs, awarded by the District Forum and this Commission.

                           iv.   The respondent/OP, shall, however, be at liberty, to recover the amount of interest, compensation and costs, from the Officer(s)/ Official(s), who is/are found guilty, in causing delay, in accordance with the provisions of  the relevant Rules.

13.                   Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

November 11, 2011                                                                                                                                         Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg