J U D G M E N T
Sri Rama Chandra Das, President - The complaint has been filed under Sec 12 of C.P Act to direct the OP to supply the essential commodities ;as per guide line, to provide Rice, Sugar , Kerosene from February, 2013 till date and to award compensation of Rs.75,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.10,000/- for mental agony.
The complainant case is that he is a BPL card holder bearing Sl. No.90. The State Govt. provide Rice of 25Kg at Rs.1.00 to the BPL card holder. The District Manager Civil Supplies corporation issue rice to the OP on each month but the OP not supplying the same to the complainant in spite of several request to provide rice, Sugar and Kerosene in subsidized rate. The OP is avoiding to supply the above articles since February, 2013. On 14..8.2014 he made representation to the OP to provide the essential goods but he remain silent. The ;Govt. has made provision to supply 25Kg of rice, 4 liters of Kerosene and 2 Kg of Sugar in subsidized rate to the BPL card holder. Since the OP did not respond the complainant he filed this complaint with ;he prayer as mentioned above.
Those the notice was served personally on the OP as per the postal A.D but he did not appear on 1411.2014 so he has been set Ex-parte on that date.
The complainant give his evidence through affidavit and relied on the xerox copies of his BPL card and representation dated 14.8.2014.
We perused the contents of the complaint as well as the evidence on affidavit of the complainant . The complainant made a grievance before this Forum regarding non supply of PDS Rice, Sugar and kerosene to him who is a BPL card holder as per the provision made by the State Government. The complainant relied on a decision reported in 34(1992) OJD 34 (CP & FCC) Budhiya Jena and others Vs Secretary, Bajapur service Co-operate Society and another of the Hon'ble State Commission of Odisha. In the said decision Four consumer and a voluntary organization registered under the societies Registration Act were the complainants against the deficiency in service on account of non-availability of essential commodities. In that case the BDO Khurda has made allegation against the Bajapur Service cooperative society for which the Hon'ble State Commission had directed to supply the commodities regularly. In the instant case the B.D.O of that area is not party to say against the present OP.
First of all the sole complainant has to prove he is a consumer under the OP. Whether he is paying any consideration to get the service of the OP . In fact no consideration is paid by the complainant to the OP to get his service. In 2000(I)CPR 71 Madhukant Premit vs District Supply Officer, Haridawar and Anr the Hon'ble State Commission of Utter Pradesh has held “It is a social service has been undertaken by the State Government for distributing ration to persons who require the same at concessional price. It is distributed through the Public Distribution System and the Govt. does not charge any amount from allottes of ration card for rendering the service. The entire burden is borne by the State Government and the complainant get the service free of cost and the material supplied to them is also at concessional price which is lower than the market price. The Ld. District Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed ” Further in 2011(4) CPR 62(NC) Sri Maheswar Patra Vs the B.D.O & ors the Hon'ble National Commission accepted the view of the Hon'ble State Commission of Odisha where it was observed “ Since for providing the PDS commodities none of the appellants, who were the opposite parties before the District Forum were being provided with any consideration by the complainant/respondent, they do not come within the meaning of Service provider and the complainant a consumer and consumer complaint was not at all maintainable and the Hon'ble National Commission further observed that “ the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of distribution of ration commodities through public distribution system by district authorities. This being the admitted position the petitioner will not be covered within the definition of a consumer under the C.P Act nor can the respondent authorities be called as service providers qua the distribution of ration under the PDS ”
Hence on relying on the above two decisions we see the complainant who has not paid any consideration to OP to get his services in supplying the PDS ration he is not a consumer under C.P Act and the complaint is not maintainable . So we order ;
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed on ex-parte.
The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 02nd December , 2014.
