The complainants are bonafide Ration Card holders and the OP is the fair price shop owner of village Chapaitarh. The complainants used to draw ration commodities from the shop of the OP.
Since long the OP did not allow the complaints to withdraw ration commodities from his fair price and for that the complainants have been deprived of getting essential commodities allotted to them by the Govt.
Despite several requests made by the complainants he did not distribute the essential commodities to the complainants and there by the OP adopted an unfair trade practice and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
The complainants further alleged that for the last time on 18th July 2014 they requested the OP to allow them to draw the essential commodities from his shop which was ignored by the OP. Finding no other alternative complaints have filed the instant case to get relief.
OP has contested the case by filling written objection contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable both in law & in facts. The OP specifically alleged that in the advocate’s notice, where the names of the family members of the complainant were mentioned, the members Lalu Mahato (card no 464860) has already died, Matuka Mahato (card no 464864) & Baisakhi Mahato (card no 464865) are married & reside elsewhere and Bileswar @ Dileswar Mahato (card no 464867) is the nick name of the complainant Gobinda Mahato and in respect of other complainants the card no 464773 in the name of Girish Chandra Mahato, card no 464780 in the name of Uma Mahato, card no 46778 in the name of Srinath Mahato, card no 46775 in the name of Gita Mahato , card no 464776 in the name of Santana Mahato are all bogus & false cards and as such intimation has been given to the Panchayet and Sub Inspector of Food & Supply, Joypur to strike out their names from the office list. The OP alleges that the complainant cheated the govt. for considerable period by taking commodities in those names.
Hence the OP prayed for the rejection of the complaint and cost for his harassment.
Now the moot questions are whether the case is maintainable or not and whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reason
The complainants are bonafied Ration Card Holders but the essential commodities had not been supplied to them despite their valid Ration Card, without any reason. Valid Ration Cards of the complainants have been filed before us. Admittedly OP is the ration dealer and distributes the essential commodities as per allotment and the complainants are the consumers. Ld. Advocate for the OP draws our attention that the complainant claimed ration for seven family members out of which Lalu Mahato card no 464860 already died, Matuka Mahato card no 464864 & Baisakhi Mahato card no 464865 are married & reside elsewhere and Bileswar @ Dileswar Mahato card no 464867 is the nick name of the complainant Gobinda Mahato and in respect of other complainants the card no 464773 in the name of Girish Chandra Mahato, card no 464780 in the name of Uma Mahato, card no 46778 in the name of Srinath Mahato, card no 46775 in the name of Gita Mahato , card no 464776 in the name of Santana Mahato are all bogus & false card and as such intimation was given before the Panchayet, Sub Inspector of Food & Supply, Joypur to struck out their names from the office list vide Proforma for Submission of Names to Sub Inspector, Food & Supply, Jaypur. The women card holder who are married and lives elsewhere and card holder who has died is substantiated by certificate by Local Panchayet Pradhan.
We perused the documents and considering the arguments advanced before us by both the parties, we are of the opinion that though Mukuta Mahato and Baisaki Mahato are married and they live at a far distance in their in-laws house yet there is no evidence that they have got new card in the address of their respective in- laws without surrendering the existing cards. Since it is the positive case of the complainant that those married female members have neither surrendered their present card or nor have obtained fresh card in the address of their in laws, we do not find cogent ground to debar them from getting essential commodities from the present ration shop using the existing card if they want to do so.
The object of CP Act is no doubt to protect the honest consumers but not to protect the unscrupulous consumers. In the present case we find that cards in duplicate in respect of single member are in existence & card in respect of deceased member is also being maintained. Such act is not at all endorsable being unethical & contrary to law. So we are of the opinion that eligible card holders are entitled to essential commodities to be supplied through Ration Shop. But the persons holding cards contrary to law are not so entitled. There are two cards being nos. 464867 and 464863 standing in the name of Bileswar @ Dileswar Mahato and Gobindo Mahato who are stated to be same and single person and this goes unchallenged. It is surprising how those cards, contrary to law, as mentioned above are still in existing inspite of the O.P’s claim of having given such information to rationing authority. It is also note worthy that no card of any member of the complainant’s family has been furnished other than two cards of the complainants.
Basic defence, as it appears, is that the some of the complainant’s family members are married and some one has died.
In this respect we have already unfold our views. But only for that reason the present two complainants cannot be deprived of their statutory right of getting ration. It has been found that one of the complainants (Gobindo Mahato) has two cards one of which was to be surrendered or cancelled which is the task of appropriate authority. Similar should be the case in respect of who has already died.
Therefore, regard being had to entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the present complainants are entitled to ration and by not allowing them to draw ration the O.P. is held to have adopted unfair trade practice dragging the complainants to unnecessary physical and mental harassment and thereby the O.P. has proved himself deficient in rendering due service.
In view of our observation with regard to maintaining double cards by a single person maintaining card of a dead person and the female member who are married if proved to have obtained separate card maintaining the earlier one, the same have to be dealt with according to law.
In respect of the above findings the petition of complaint is liable to be allowed. Hence,
ORDERED
The complainant case no. 33 of 2014 be and same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.3, 000/- (Three thousand) only to each of the complainants.
The OP is directed to allow the complainants to draw ration through their respective valid cards forthwith but positively with effect from the week following the date of passing this order.
The OP is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two Thosand) only to each of the complainants for causing harassment to the eligible card holders by way of not supplying essential commodities and Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand) only to each of the complainants as litigation cost within 1 (one) month for the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the provision of law.
Let a copy of the Judgement be given to the Inspector, Food & Supply, Joypur locality for taking necessary action in view of the observations made in the body of the judgment.
Let a copy of this judgement be supplied to the parties free of charge.
