Kerala

Idukki

CC/217/2019

George Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

District collector - Opp.Party(s)

14 Dec 2021

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 4.12.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2021

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.217/2019

Between

Complainant : George Thomas, S/o. Thomas,

Mookkilikkattu House,

Thankamany, Idukki.

(By Adv: T.B. Babu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The District Collector, Idukki,

Collectrate, Kuyilimala,

Painavu P.O., Idukki.

2. The Tahsildar,

Idukki Taluk,

Idukki Colony P.O.,

Cheruthoni, Idukki.

3. Cherupushpam,

Head Surveyor, Idukki Taluk,

Idukki Colony P.O.,

Cheruthoni, Idukki.

(Both by Adv: N.K. Vinod Kumar)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. Complaint filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Case of the complainant is briefly discussed hereunder : (cont…..2)

- 2 -

2. Complainant filed an application on 24.10.2019 before the Village Officer of Thankamany, for surveying his property. On 12.11.2019, Village Officer had made enquiries on the basis of application submitted by complainant and had filed a report before 2^nd opposite party who is the Tahsildar, Idukki Taluk. 1^st opposite party is District Collector of Idukki and 3^rd opposite party is Head Surveyor of Idukki Taluk. 2^nd opposite party had, on 12.11.2019 itself, opened a file bearing No.H3 13503/2019 on the basis of report of Village Officer and had entrusted it to the 3^rd opposite party for preparation of survey plan. However, 3^rd opposite party had deliberately delayed the work. Though the petitioner had repeatedly made 7 requests, 3^rd opposite party had not headed the same. Complainant submits that due to delay caused by 3^rd opposite party, he had suffered much loss and mental agony. 1^st opposite party is vicariously liable for the acts of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, apart from being personally liable for the same. Complainant prays for a compensation of Rs.1 lakh from opposite parties owing to loss sustained and mental agony due to delay caused in surveying his property by 3^rd opposite party. He also seeks a Mandatory Injection against 3^rd opposite party directing him to survey the property and also for litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- from opposite parties.

3. Opposite parties have filed written version and contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. As per decision rendered by National Commission, 564/NC of 2016, official acts of revenue authorities cannot be brought under the Consumer Protection Act. On the basis of report submitted by Village Officer, Thankamany, upon application of complainant dated 24.10.2019, 2^nd opposite party had commenced proceedings on 29.11.2019 itself. He had ordered measuring of property comprised in Survey No.260/6-5, 260/11-5 in Block No.43 of Thankamany Village and had entrusted the file to 3^rd opposite party. Application submitted by complainant on 24.10.2019 was incomplete. It was not submitted in Form No.10. Complainant was intimated accordingly. Yet he had not submitted a proper application. Despite this, 3^rd opposite party had started his work. 3^rd opposite party is not required to do field work. His work is confined to that of an Inspecting Authority. He only entrusts files received in the office to different surveyors working under him. File by the complainant was received only on 16.12.2019. However, complainant had already filed this complaint on 4.12.2019. Complaint is premature. During this time, entire staff of the 3^rd opposite party including all the surveyors were engaged in the work of surveying properties situated in between Idukki dam and Cheruthoni river as per the Order of Hon’ble High Court in WP(c)30113/2018 Fk dated 2.11.2019. This was for determining unauthorized encroachments. Apart from this, they were also engaged in pattayam work as per Government Order for preparation and distribution of pattayams in January 2020. During (cont….3)

 

- 3 -

this time, only those applications which were to be urgently looked into as directed by the District Collector alone were being considered by 3^rd opposite party. Complainant’s application was the 15^th one. His application can be taken up only in accordance with serial numbers / seniority assigned. He cannot jump the queue. It is incorrect to say that complainant had requested for carrying out the work, repeatedly, for 7 times. He had not even met 3^rd opposite party in person. However, he once called the 3^rd opposite party over phone. Thereafter on 31.12.2019 and 1.1.2020, complainant had abused 3^rd opposite party over phone and matter was reported to 2^nd opposite party. Complaint has no merits. Same is to be dismissed with cost.

4. After filing of written version, case was posted for complainant’s evidence from 17.3.2021 onwards. Complainant was repeatedly absent from 30.9.2021 on 3 occasions, when the case was posted for evidence. No steps have been taken. No witness list was filed. Since complainant has not tendered any evidence, it appears that opposite party also has not tendered evidence. Hence evidence was closed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 to 3. Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1) Whether there was any deficiency in service ?

2) Whether the complaint as such is maintainable ?

3) Whether complainant is entitled for any compensation ?

4) Reliefs and costs?

 

5. Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together

 

Complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of 3^rd opposite party who is Head Surveyor of Idukki Taluk. No specific allegation regarding deficiency of service are made against opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is made vicariously liable for the acts of opposite parties 2 and 3. Though the complainant claims that 1^st opposite party is also personally liable, no such allegations which would make 1^st opposite party personally liable in the matter are made against him. Opposite parties are Government Servants. They are Revenue Authorities. Prima facie, work to be done by 3^rd opposite party as such, involving surveying property of complainant on the basis of his complaint / application, does not appear as a relationship between consumer and service provider. Apart from collection of nominal fee, these services are free in nature. Hence contentions that complaint is not maintainable appear to be substantive. That apart there is no evidence from the side of complainant to prove that there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3. As far as opposite parties 1 and 2 are concerned, no specific allegations in this regard are raised against them. Hence we find (cont….4)

• 4 -

that complainant has not succeeded in proving that there was any deficiency in service either from the part of opposite parties. For these reasons we find that complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed in complaint. Point Nos.1to 3 are answered accordingly.

 

6. Point No.4:

 

In the result, this petition is dismissed, considering the circumstances, without costs.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 14^th day of December, 2021

 

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

APPENDIX : Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT