KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 498/2017

JUDGMENT DATED: 06.12.2019

(Against the Order in C.C. 61/2015 of CDRF, Kasaragod)

PRESENT : 

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

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                             : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

N. Raveendran, Olavara, Udumbumthala P.O, Thekkea Trikaripur, Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod District.

                                         (Party in person)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Raghunathan P.P., Secretary, Grama Panchayath Trikaripur, Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod District.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER

The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 61/2015 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod.  The respondent is the opposite party. 

2.  The gist of the  complainant’s case is that he had approached the opposite party who is the Panchayath  Secretary on 25.11.2013  for the issuance of copy of the permit which was issued for the construction of  a house as per No.339/09-10 but before  completing the construction of the house  the same was stopped due to financial stringency.  In the mean time the complainant lost his permit irrecoverably.   Even after reminders the opposite party failed to give any reply and hence  the complainant approached Deputy Director of Panchayath and as per his direction he filed an application for renewal of the permit on 05.11.2014 but even then  the same is not received by him  by stating the reason that file was  not traced out.  On 18.11.2014 the DDP again strictly directed the opposite party for issuance of copy of permit also not heeded by him.  Hence the complainant produced copy of the plan before the opposite party which bears the permit number on it which is an approved one was also not considered by opposite party.  Thereafter again complainant approached DDP and tried to execute the order of DDP dated 18.11.2014.   The complainant was highly in need of copy of the permit for producing before the KSFE for availing a loan and at last  filed an application for regularisation by paying a huge fee as directed by the opposite party.  The opposite party was denied the issuance of copy of permit due to the enimical term with the complainant since  the complainant had filed many petitions against the opposite party and Panchayath for the irregularities and illegalities committed by them.  Due to the denial of permit the complainant had to suffer a lot since he was in urgent need of money for the completion of his house. Opposite party herein not ready to comply the order of DDP as well as the order of Kerala Government to issue copy of the permit not within 3 years but it was extended up to 9 years and retained the application for renewal of permit with him illegally for one year and 3 months. Due to the vengeance attitude of the opposite party the complainant had to suffer irreparable monetary loss and mental agony and hence the complaint. 

3.  The opposite party appeared and filed version denying the allegations and further stated that the complainant and his wife Rugmini owned a property in RS No.349/8 part 8 South Trikaripur village and applied for the building permit for the construction of the house and on the basis of an application permit was issued as per No.339/2009-10 dt.25.11.2009 for a period of 3 years i.e up to 24.11.2012.  Within the prescribed period the complainant never informed about the loss of the permit or applied for the certified copy.  On 25.01.2011 the complainant applied for the copy of the permit and since it was after the expiry of the permitted period of 3 years it was informed as such to the complainant that he is not able to issue the same after 3 years.  As per Kerala Panchayath building Construction Act 2011 the above 3 years period can be extended up to 9 years only on the satisfaction of the Secretary if the complainant produced the original permit then only the Secretary has to renew the same and pleaded no deficiency on his side.  Thereafter the complainant approached the DDP and DDP sought an explanation from the opposite party herein and promised to issue permit on the basis of the back file which is with the opposite party herein.    It is also admitted in the version that he had issued building Number  only after regularising the permit since  90% of the construction of the house was already done  after remitting the prescribed fee for the same.  It is further alleged that the complainant is always finding pleasure to drag the opposite party and the department and misusing the provisions under Right to Information Act by filing false complaint and black mailing people.  The opposite party further submitted that there is no deficiency of service from his part and they are providing best service to the people of the Panchayath and the same is approved by the authority and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

4.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on his side and the opposite party was examined as DW1. 

5.  On the basis of the evidences adduced by both the parties the finding of the District Forum was that the specific case of the complainant is that the opposite party has adopted a vengeance attitude towards the complainant since he questioned all the illegalities and irregularities of the Panchayath.  On perusal of the evidence before the Forum it is evident that the complainant was dragged before the opposite party for about one year and 3 months that too, by not taking into account the provision that the permit can be renewed after the expiry of 3 years before completing 9 years on the basis of Ext. A3, only to harass the complainant.  Moreover the non-compliance of a specific direction issued by DDP who is the higher authority of the opposite party as per Ext. A7 by the opposite party arbitrarily cannot be looked into a lighter sense.  The opposite party is bound to do his duty and dereliction of duty amounts to deficiency in service. 

6.  The District Forum further found that even though the complainant is having a case that he has sustained damages by way of cancellation of loan by KSFE for the completion of the construction of his house, it is to be noted that he had produced all the documents pertaining to his case, but he had not produced any single document to prove his loss.  Therefore the Forum is not in a position to assess the damages caused to the complainant.  But the Forum found that because of the attitude of the opposite party the complainant had to suffer irreparable loss and hardships and he is entitled for a necessary relief.  Therefore the District Forum allowed Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and         Rs. 2,000/- as costs.  The complainant was not satisfied with this Order.  Hence the appeal.  He argued that this amount is not sufficient for the redressal of his grievances. 

7.  The respondent accepted notice of this appeal, but not turned up to contest the appeal.  We heard the argument of the appellant and perused the entire records.  We find that due to the adamant attitude of the respondent the appellant had suffered too much mental agony and hardships.  The request of the appellant only to issue a certified copy of the permit that was denied by the respondent without any sufficient cause, the only intention of the respondent was to harass the appellant. 

8.  The finding of the District Forum is correct, but the compensation awarded is not sufficient to redress the hardships suffered by the appellant.  Hence we modify the Order.  The respondent/opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and costs to the appellant. 

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the Order passed by the District Forum is modified, as stated above.  Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this judgment otherwise the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization.          

T.S.P. MOOSATH    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb