KERALASTATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FA.398/06 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/1/09 PRESENT:- SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Secretary, Erathu Grama Panchayat Vadakkadathucavu.P.O., : APPELLANT Pathanamthitta (By Adv. P.G.Aravind & Sheeja Aravind) Vs 1. P.A.Jainamma, W/o.T.M.Cheriyan, Daivavila Thekkethil Badhani Bhavan, Thuvayoor Vadakku, Manakkala, Adoor, : RESPONDENTS Working as U.D.Typist, PWD (Roads) Division, Civil Station, Wayanad, Kalpetta 673122. 2. District Medical officer, Pathanamthitta.. JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in the file of OP No.195/03 dated 20/2/2006. The 1st opposite party is the appellant who prefers this appeal from the order passed by the Forum below. The brief of the case is that the complainant is the owner of the building and she has obtained sanction for construction of the said building from the Erathu Panchayat on 31/10 1987 and the construction has been over. While so, she has received a letter informing her that as a result of the resolution of the Panchayat Council , it was decided to take the complainant’s building on rental basis for which she is entitled to get rent at the PWD rate. The panchayat Council have taken a decision to pay rent at PWD rate by which the rent fixed as per Rent Fixation Certificate is Rs.818/- per month. The rental arrangement expired by 1/1/1998, and vacant possession of the building was received from the Panchayat. But for the period from 18/9/1994 to 1/1/1998, the rent was not paid by the Panchayat to the complainant. She has made complaints to District Collector, Pathanamthitta and to the District Medical Officer, for orders to allow rent due from the Panchayat and she obtained necessary orders in that regard. Thereafter also the payment of rent delayed. While so, the complainant has received letter No.C3-421/88 dated 10/9/1997, from the Panchayat based on which also complaints were given before the District Collector and District Medical Officer. The complainants finds it difficult to meet the expenses in her family and treatment expenses necessary for her b y meager salary. She has to close bank loan availed by her to construct the building which has been rented out to the Panchayat. The Panchayat did not pay the rent for the building and have caused the rent in arrears. It is to realise the rent dues with interest, compensation and costs, this complaint. The complainant prays for granting a relief. The 1st opposite party has filed a version, the 2nd opposite party remains exparte. The 1st opposite party contended in the version that the building belongs to the complainant has been taken on rental basis for running the Primary Health Centre for the period from 18/9/1994 to 31/5/1997 and the rent fixed was Rs.250/- per mensum. Hence towards rent arrears for a period of 32 months, the amount due is Rs.8,000/- and that amount can be re released to the complainant from the Panchayat. With regard to the action taken to the Panchayat in the matter, a report dated 25/9/97 and decision No.VII (13) have been produced in evidence in this OP, which contain the details of the agreement to pay Rs.250/- with effect from 18/9/1994. Therefore the rental arrangement in respect of the complainant’s building is admitted by the opposite party regarding rent dues, there was no objection from the part of the opposite parties. But the fact is that the rent payable is at the rate of Rs.250/- per mensum, and the total amount towards rent dues for 32 months can be released to her. Hence referring to the rent deed and amount payable to the complainant from the Panchayat has been informed too the complainant, and as per the information, she has to receive total rent amounting Rs.8,000/- which is the amount arrived at by the Panchayat based on the rent fixed at Rs.250/- per mensum, so much is stated in the version of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite was absent. The Forum below contended detailed trial in the above dispute and the petitioners witness was examined as PW1, T.M.Cherian. and the documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A23. From the part of the 1st opposite party no witness was cited and examined and there was no single paper was produced and marked as the Ext. In the circumstance the Forum below framed 3 issues , they are (1) Whether this complaint is maintainable for the Forum? (2) Whether the complaint is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Reliefs and costs? The most important question is the maintainability of the complaint raised in the Forum below. The Forum below correctly answered in the point No.1 and the finding of the Forum below in this point is uphold. In respect of the building was transferred to the complainant on 25/9/1986 and thereafter tax was paid in the name of the complainant. According to him, even after several communications to get the rent for the building which was rented out to the Panchayat, there was no response from the Panchayat to take necessary action in this regard. In the prima facie there is latent ambiguity in this point. The 1st question is whether the tax payer is a consumer or not? But in this case another important question is also arised. The arrears of rent is a dispute coming under the purview of the Rent Control Court or in the concerned Civil Court. But here there is no dispute regarding rent audit was already sanctioned. The only question is the delay of the payment of the arrears rent from by the Panchayat. It is a deficiency in service accordance with the Consumer Protection Act. The Government is not a party. It is not a lacuna. This case is maintainable before the Forum below. The Forum below correctly answered other two points on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant. In the result the Forum below allowed the complaint and the complainant is allowed to realise Rs.32,311 from the opposite party panchayat with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till this date and thereafter 6% interest per annum till whole payment. The complainant is also allowed to get compensation of Rs.3,000/- together with cost of Rs.1,500/- from 1st opposite party. The appellant prefers this appeal from the above finding. The appeal come before this Commission for hearing today. The respondent in person is present and his counsel represented that he is ready for hearing. But availed the counsel for the appellant till 4 pm. Due to the absence of the both appellant and his counsel this case was taken again at 4.20 pm. The respondent in person submitted that he is coming from Wayanad only for attending in this case. The amount involved in this case is the only sort of his entire livelihood. Heard the counsel for the respondent and perused the entire grounds of appeal memorandum filed by the appellant also in this case. This Commission also perused the entire lower court records and found that the Forum below is correctly compensated for the deficiency in service committed by the appellant. This Commission is seeing any illegality and irregularity in the order passed by the Forum below. This order is legally sustainable. But this Commission seeing that the Forum below ordered both the compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and cost of Rs.1,500/-. It is also ordered that the interest of 12% per annum from the date of the petition. I think to interfere in this quantum of the compensation and the cost ordered by the Forum below. This Commission decided to modify the order passed by the Forum below. In the result the order is uphold with following modifications, thereby the complainant is allowed to realise Rs.32.311 from the 1st opposite party Panchayat with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till this date, and thereafter at 6% interest per annum till whole payment. The complainant is also allowed to get compensation of Rs.3,000 and set aside the cost of Rs.1,500/- ordered to pay by the 1st opposite party. This appeal is allowed in part accordance with the above modification of the order of the lower Forum. Other portions are confirmed. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The points are answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
