KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.55/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 29.11.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                             :  MEMBER

The Secretary,

Muttom Grama Panchayat                                  : APPELLANT

Muttom.P.O., Idukki District.

(By Adv:B.Rajesh)

          Vs.

1. M.K.Gopalan,                                                  : RESPONDENTS

    S/o Kesavan,

    Mechirayil House,

    Sankarappillikara, Muttom.P.O.,

    Idukki District.

2. Thankamma,

     Ayyanikkatta House,

     Kollamkunnu Bhagom,

     Muttom.P.O.,Idukki District.

3. They deputy Director of Panchayat,

     District Office,  Thodupuzha.P.O.,

      Idukki District.

(By Adv: Sivakumar.S, counsdel for R1)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the opposite party/Secretary Muttom Grama panchayat in CC.80/09 in the file of CDRF, Idukki.  The appellant along with the 2^nd opposite party who is a staff of the 1^st opposite party is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- each as compensation to the complainant and 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2000/- as cost.

          2. It is the case of the complainant that himself and his wife was gifted by Sibigiri Church, Muttom of 7 cents of property and he availed  a grant from the Panchayat  under the  Indira Awas Yojana scheme (IAY) provided for the scheduled castes  and the building  was exempted from building tax.  But the panchayat assessed tax and RR notice was received for a sum of Rs.890/- as  building tax.  The complainant filed representation before the Chief Minister which was forwarded to the District Collector. Thereafter the complainant approached Hon’ble High court vide writ petition W.P(C)
No.20650/06.  The Hon’ble High Court ordered the 1^st opposite party to dispose the matter. 1^st opposite party directed to pay Rs.890/- and future payments were avoided.  The complainant again approached Loka Adalath conducted by the Legal Services Authority, Thodupuzha.  As per  order of the Lok adalath building tax  was fully exempted.  It is the allegation of the complainant that the complainant was removed from the BPL list also.  It is alleged that the complainant has sustained loss of Rs.60,000/- by the act of the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant was constrained to sell his property for Rs.45000/- because of the financial crisis.

          3. The opposite party filed version stating that complainant had received Rs.35000/- for construction of the building as per  IAY  scheme from the block panchayat.  As per the decision of the finance standing committee of the panchayat dated 29.1.01 a sum of Rs.114/- is to be received as building tax from the complainant.  The members of scheduled castes are exempted from paying building tax in IAY scheme. But the complainant did not produce caste certificate and the certificate from the block panchayat.  As per the direction of the High Court the matter was again considered and  building tax from 2006 were exempted.  It is directed as per the order of the adalath the compaliant’s building must be avoided from building tax.  The complainant is now included in the BPL list.  It was contended that the complaint is not maintainable.  As per the order of the  Adalath Court the demanded dues were also  avoided.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; Exts.P1 to P8.

          5. We find that the Forum as already noted above has ordered the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the complainant and Rs.2000/- as cost.

          6. We find that maintainability as such has not been considered by the Forum.  We find the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer under Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.  It is pointed out by the counsel for the respondent/complainant that Section 2(1)(d)(ii) is attracted.  We find there is no consideration paid at the instance of the complainant for availing the alleged services.  The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums are constituted for resolving the disputes between consumers and the service providers.  CDRF has no jurisdiction to redress the grievances of everybody apart from the grievances arising from the consumer/service provider, consumer/supplier, manufacturer of goods etc disputes.  The complainant would not come under any of such categories.  The order of the Forum is without jurisdiction.  Hence the same is liable to be set aside.  In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 

          Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum along with the LCR.

          JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

          SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                             : MEMBER

ps