Kerala

Wayanad

CC/106/2015

K. J. John, S/o. Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

Range Officer, Muthanga Range, - Opp.Party(s)

08 Aug 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CIVIL STATION ,KALPETTA
WAYANAD-673122
PHONE 04936-202755
 
Complaint Case No. CC/106/2015
 
1. K. J. John, S/o. Joseph
Kalambatt House, Nenmenykunnu Post, Thottamoola, Sulthan Bathery Taluk
Wayanad
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Range Officer, Muthanga Range,
Muthanga, Sulthan Bathery Taluk
Wayanad
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

By Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:

 

The Complaint filed against the Opposite party to pay the sanctioned amount by the Opposite party for the damages caused to his house and article due to the attack of the monkey's and to pay cost and compensation for the deficiency of service.

 

2. Brief of the complaint:- The house of the Complainant was attacked by wild life (Monkey) and caused much damages to the house and house hold items before six months.. After the incident Complainant reported the matter to the Opposite party to get compensation. On the request the Opposite Party's official came to the spot and assessed the damages and reported the matter to the government. And after sanctioning the compensation by the government, the Opposite Party has intimated the Complainant to come and collect the cheque from Opposite party.

 

3. When the Complainant approached the Opposite party to collect the cheque the Opposite party has refused to give the cheque stating that there is an OR 20/02 is pending against the Complainant. The Complainant submitted that no case is pending against him and further stated that, due to this the Complainant caused much difficulty mental agony pain and sufferings. The non issuing sanctioned compensation by the government is a clear deficiency of service from the side of Opposite Party. Hence prayed before the Forum to direct the Opposite party to hand over the sanctioned amount to the Complainant and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

 

4. Notice was served to Opposite Party and Opposite Party entered appearance and version filed denying all the allegation leveled against Opposite Party. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and Exts.A1 is marked. Ext.A1 is the paper news on Mathrubhoomi daily dated 29.08.2014 wherein the alleged incident is reported. Since the Opposite Party has not defended the case and not adduced any oral evidence the complaint can be believed in toto.

 

5. On considering the complaint and affidavit and documents, we raised the following issues for considerations.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the side of Opposite Party?

2. Relief and cost.

 

6. Point No.1:- On considering the complaint and documents we are in the opinion that any way the attack of the monkey is admitted by Opposite party and compensation in sanctioned by the Government is also not disputed. The only thing is to be consider is when there is any lien over a crime against the Complainant is prevail or not. In the matter we are in the opinion that it is a different issue, if there is any crime against the Complainant the Opposite Party can proceed against the Complainant according to law. Here the Complainant is entitled for the sanctioned compensation amount for his damages caused due to the wild life attack. Hence we opinion that non issuance of a sanctioned compensation amount from the government for the damages caused due to the wild life attack to the Complainant is a clear deficiency of service. Hence the point No.1 is found accordingly.

 

7. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found against the Opposite Party, Opposite Party is liable to pay the sanctioned amount and cost and compensation and the Complainant is entitled for the same.

 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to issue the sanctioned compensation by the government to the Complainant for the damages caused and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 8th day of August 2015.

Date of Filing:21.04.2015

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX.

 

Witness for the complainant:

 

Nil.

 

Witness for the Opposite Party:

 

Nil.

 

Exhibits for the complainant:

 

A1. Mathrubhumi News Paper Page No.14. dt:29.08.2014.

 

Exhibits for the opposite Party.

 

Nil.

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.