IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30thday of March, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
C C No. 193/18 (filed on 15-09-18)
Petitioner : Sanilkumar M.V.
Madayangal,
S.H. Mount P.O.
Kottayam – 6.
Vs.
Opposite party : Secretary,
Kottayam Municipality.
(Adv. Dominic Sebastian)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complainant took a community hall of the opposite party on rent on 06-05-2018 for a marriage. He had deposited Rs.6,000/- towards the rent and 2,000/- towards deposit. On 19-05-2018 he applied for the refund of the said deposit amount. But the opposite party did not pay the said amount yet. The complainant approached the opposite party several times, but he was informed that his application was under process and did not signed by the Secretary. The dispute was agitated by the then counselor in the counsel. Later he was informed that a cheque was ready for payment, but it was not signed by the Secretary. The act of the opposite party is against the policy of the government that public would get service from the government offices without delay. So the complaint is filed for compensation against deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed version. The opposite party admits that the complainant has deposited the amount Rs.2,000/- for booking Panchayath Community hall at Kumaranalloor. The order regarding the payment of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant was passed on 13-06-2018 and it was communicated to the clerk on duty. The Superintendent of Accounts payment gave direction to pay the amount on 19-06-18. But the Section Clerk failed to comply with direction. Hence the payment to the complainant was delayed. The opposite party has taken action against the said Clerk and issued a memo to that effect and it was pending disposal. The said amount was already paid to the complainant. The delay was caused not due to any willful negligence or latches on the part of opposite party. The damages claimed is not allowable as the municipal fund belongs to the public and the public fund cannot be squandered. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In evidence, the complainant filed proof affidavit along with Exts.A1 and A2 where as the opposite party filed proof affidavit along with Ext.B1.
On perusal of complaint, version and evidence on record, we would like to frame the following point.
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, which is liable to be compensated?
The complaint is filed seeking compensation for damages caused by the deficiency in service of the opposite party by non payment of refundable security deposit paid by the complainant. The opposite party admits the delay in the non repayment stating that the reason for the delay has caused because of the dereliction of the duty of one of its staff.
There is no dispute that the complainant has paid Rs.2,000/- as security along with rent. The said deposit was admittedly not refunded to the complainant even after the elapse of 5 months of filing request for refund by the complainant.There is no evidence before us to show that opposite party has refunded the amount. Ext.A2 and the 1st page of Ext.B1 are one and the same which is the notice dtd.08-10-18 sent by the opposite party to the complainant informing him that the cheque for Rs.2,000/- was ready. The opposite party being by the government machinery has a duty to render necessary service to the general public without delay and dereliction as far as possible. The opposite party admitting that the non payment was due to disregard committed by one of its staff which itself is a deficiency. The opposite party is vicariously liable for the action of its staff. Though the opposite party states that they had taken action against the said staff, they had not produced any document to prove that. A memo stated to have been sent to the said clerk has also not been produced. Even on admission, negligence from the part of staff, does not immunise the opposite party from being found as deficient in delivering necessary service.
The opposite party has contended that the complainant has tried to misuse public fund by raising such false allegation. But the opposite party themselves has admitted that due to the deficient act of one of its staff amount could not be repeated. So it is the duty of the opposite party to take care of the public fund as well as rendering good service to the public.
Hence in the light of above discussion, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is allowed accordingly.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- along with an interest @
6% from 19-05-2018.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
- No cost is ordered.
Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30thday of March, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 :Receipt dtd.06-02-18 issued by Kottayam Municipality
A2 :Notice dtd.08-10-18 issued by Kottayam municipality.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
B1 : Notice dtd.08-10-18 by opposite party to petitioner
By Order
j Senior Superintendent
