KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 83/2021

JUDGMENT DATED: 03.11.2021

           (Against the Order in Unnumbered C.C of CDRC, Kollam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

K. Rajamma, Raveendra Vilasam, Puthankulam P.O, Poothakkulam, Kollam- 691302.

                                  (Party in person)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Head of the Department, Kerala State Food & Civil Supplies Department,  Public Office, Thiruvananthapuram- 695001.

2. Director, Kerala State Food & Civil Supplies Department, Public Office, Thiruvananthapuram. 695001.

3. District Supply Officer, Kollam.

4. Taluk Supply Officer, Kottarakkara.

5. Sudarsanan, Licensee No. 151 Ration shop, Vellarvattom, Ilampazhannoor P.O, Kadakkal- 691 534.  

                                                          JUDGMENT

SMT.BEENA KUMARI. A :MEMBER

This appeal is against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam on an unnumbered complaint filed by one Rajamma against four Government officials regarding the issue of a ration card.  The District commission rejected the complaint on the ground that there was no consumer and service provider relationship between the complainant and opposite parties.

        2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

        Complainant had obtained a permanent ration card by substituting her old temporary ration card in the year 2004.  The ration card was entrusted to the 4^th opposite party who is the licensee of ration shop No: 151 Vellarvattom.  There is no allegation of passing of any consideration to the licensee for getting it registered.  However the licensee did not return the same after getting it registered but retained the ration card with ulterior motive.  Hence on 14-07-2004 she filed a complaint before the Taluk Supply Office, Kottarakara for the unlawful retention of her permanent ration card.  She filed several complaints before the Taluk Supply Office and District Supply Office, but all were in vain.  They have not taken any steps to issue a duplicate ration card.  The complainant alleges that she has sustained irreparable loss and injury as she has not obtained the ration card allotted to her.  Hence she filed the complaint before the District Commission for an award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/-.

        3. Before admitting the complaint the District Commission heard the question of maintainability of the complaint.  The complainant argued the matter.  The District Commission heard the matter and concluded that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Commission on the ground that there is no consumer and service provider relationship between the complainant and opposite parties.  Therefore the complaint was dismissed as non-maintainable.

        4. The finding of the District Commission is that: - Sub section 7 of Section (2) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 would define the term consumer.  Accordingly a consumer is a person who buys any goods for consideration or hires or avails any service for consideration.  Here in this case admittedly the complainant has not purchased any goods from any of the opposite parties by paying any consideration.  According to the complainant she obtained a permanent ration card by substituting her old temporary ration card.  But she has no case that she paid any consideration for the issue of the said ration card.  According to the complainant she obtained a new ration card in her home address in the name of herself and her children and the same was entrusted to the 4^th opposite party who is the licensee of ration shop No. 151, Vellarvattom.  No question of passing of any consideration is alleged while entrusting the ration card to the licensee for getting it registered.  It is further to be pointed out that the 1^st opposite party is the Head of the Civil Supplies Department,  2^nd opposite party is the Director of Civil Supplies, 3^rd opposite party is the District Supply Officer and the 4^th opposite party is the TSO, Kottarakkara.  They are Government officials.  They are not expected to receive any consideration.  If at all the complainant is having any grievance against the Government officials the remedy is not through District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  She has to approach the Lok Ayuktha alleging maladministration against the Government officials for not returning the ration card and not taking any action against the delinquent ration shop dealer who misappropriated the rationed articles allotted to the complainant and also for unlawfully retaining the permanent ration card allotted to the complainant.  It is true that the 5^th opposite party is a ration shop dealer but the complainant has no allegation that he has paid any consideration for any service of the ration shop dealer.

        5. On evaluating the entire materials available on record the District Commission came to the conclusion that there was no consumer service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties.  As there was no consumer service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties the complainant was held not entitled to file a consumer complaint before the District Commission.  The complaint was therefore rejected under Sec. 36(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.    

        6. Against the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal.  Appellant present in person before this Commission.  We heard the appellant.

        7. We also find that the complainant is not a consumer under Sec. 2(7) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  She has not paid any consideration for the issue of the ration card.

          In view of the above, we concur with the finding given by the District Commission.  We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Commission.  We confirm the order passed by the District Commission.

        In the result, this appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN  : MEMBER

jb