IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 30^th  day of December, 2022

              Present:    Sri.Manulal.V.S, President

                            Sri.K.M. Anto, Member

IA.464/2022

in

CC No. 131/2018 (filed on 30/06/2018)

Complainant                           :         Thomas Devasia, aged 48 years

Mannusseril House

                                                          Mannanam P.O- 686561

                                                          Vs

Opposite parties                      :1.      K.B.Jayachandran

                                                          Taluk Supply Officer, Kottayam-1

                                                 2.      Preetha P.S

                                                          Rationing Inspector

                                                          Taluk Supply Office, Kottayam-1

                                                3.       Sabukuttan

                                                          Ex- Rationing Inspector

                                                          Taluk Supply Office, Kottayam-1

                                                          (Adv.P.R.Thankachan)

                                                4.       James Vazhakkala

                                                          A.R.D.No.222

                                                          Ration Shop, Mannanam P.O

                                                          Pin – 686561.      

O R D E R

Sri.Manulal.V.S, President

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

This petition is filed by the Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 in the original complaint challenging the maintainability of the complaint. The petitioner herein contented that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the respondents/ defacto complainants availed the service of the opposite parties 1 to 3, who are the public officers at free of cost.  According to the petitioners here in the service availed without a consideration would not come under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence the petitioner prays for the dismissal of the complaint as it is not maintainable before this commission.

The respondents/defacto complainant resisted the petition contenting that the petition is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by converting his BPL ration card as APL ration card and thereby denied to his right to avail the ration under the priority category.  It is further contented by the complainant that though he had lodged several complaints before the first opposite party, with conducting any enquiry the first opposite party assisted the 4^th opposite party to affix a seal on his ration card as it was converted in the general category.  According to the defacto complainant due to the act of the opposite parties he had to pay the price for the rice and Atta which were distributed among priority card holders in a subsidy rate.  It is further alleged by the defacto complainant that due to the deficient act of the opposite parties he is constrained to purchase the rice and wheat from the open market and thereby caused a severe financial loss to him.

Heard both sides.

The original complaint is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  According to the respondent/ complainant he holds a ration card as BPL category since 2009.  Due to the enmity between the respondent / complainant and the 4^th opposite party who is a ration shop dealer illegally affixed a seal on the ration card as general category in 09/07/2017.  Thereby the opposite parties denied rice and wheat to the complainant/respondent which were supplied by the government authority to the priority card holders.  The respondent/ complainant further argued that he had paid Rs.100/- as fees for the ration card in general category and after lodging a complaint by the complainant an amount of Rs.50/- was returned by the opposite parties.

It is pertinent to not that a certain some of money is collected from the persons for issuing a ration card and this is not a fee for providing ration card.  The amount charged for the issuance of the ration card could not be considered as fee for the same, but only a charge for compensating the expenses incurred by the government or the authority.  The issuance of a ration card to a person is not a service rendered by the authority, but a statutory duty caste upon the authority by the government.  The ration card holder is not the owner of the same as against any other commodity purchase for price, but only a custodian of the same for some specific purpose.  The concerned authority can at any time amend, vary, suspend or even revoke the same if seems necessary.  It is a facility provide by the government to achieve certain common benefits. 

It is pertinent to note that the case on hand is not a case of goods sold or service availed for consideration as defined u/s.2 (1) d of the Consumer Protection Act.  Service is also defined u/s.2 (1) d(o) were some of the organisations or departments under the control are included, the Civil Supplies Department is not included, though they are the guardian of Consumer Protection.  Therefore if any authority under this department, assuming have committed any dereliction of duty or deficiency in service they cannot be brought under the umbrella of Consumer Protection Act.  Since there is no consideration for the service rendered or to be rendered by the petitioner herein /respondent.  In the absence of the consideration or in other words when the authority are performing their duty under statutory obligation they will not come within the four wall of service providers or who rendered service etc as defined u/s.2 (1) d (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Hon’ble National Commission held in Kuldeep Singh and R.N.Sahai J.J (AIR 1994 SE 787 Para D) held that the test therefore is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body, but whether the nature of duty and function performed by its service or even facility.  From this, it is clear that if the statutory authority is providing a service then the person who avails this service is a consumer as envisaged in this Consumer Protection Act, but if the authority providing a facility to anybody for attaining certain common benefits that person will not come under the definition of consumer.  Here we are also joining with the contentions of the petitioners herein/ opposite parties 1-3 that they were not rendering service but only to provide facility to certain social benefits. 

Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the service expected to be rendered by the opposite parties will not come within meaning of Consumer Protection Act and in this view neither the complainant could be called as a consumer, nor the petitioners herein/ opposite parties could be called as service provider and the consequential result is that the complaint is not maintainable.  Therefore this IA is allowed and complaint is dismissed accordingly. 

  Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th day of December,2022.

Sri.Manulal.V.S, President sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member   sd/-

                                              By order

                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                         Assistant Registrar (I/C)