DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 20^th  day of February  2021

Present   : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member (President I/c)

                : Smt.Vidya.A, Member                                                                         Date of Filing:      13/10/2014

CC No.153/2014

1.M.Ramagupthan                                              -                    Complainants S/o.Narayanan moothan

Muthuvallikalam (Sreenilayam) House,

   Thenkara Post, Mannarkkad

   Palakkad

2.M.R.Ajithkumar

   S/o.M.Ramaguptan

   Sreenilayam House,

   Thenkara Post,

   Mannarkkad Taluk, Palakkad

(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)

                                                                                       Vs

1.Sivadasan                                                        -                 Opposite Parties

    Dwaraka, Chorakkad,

    Peruvamba Post,

   Palakkad

   (Floor Supervisor, Golden Palm Canteen, Palakkad)

(By Adv.V.Krishnadas)

2.Kesavadasan

   Manager

   ATNK K AREA

  Armed Forces Veteran Canteen

   Vazhakkadavu Road,

   Kunnathurmedu Post Palakkad

  (Canteen Manager, Golden Palm Canteen, Palakkad)

(BY Adv.G.Jayachandran)

3.The Chairman

   Golden Palm Canteen Committee Management

   HQATNK & K AREA Island grounds

   Chennai – 600 009

4.Dy.Director General

   Canteen Services, Integrated Head quarters of MOD Army

  QMG Branch, Block L1, Room No.16M,

  Church Road, New Delhi

5.Chairman

   Board of Administrative and General Manager

   Canteen Store Department

   Adelphi, 119 Maharishi Carve Road

   Mumbai (Board of Control of Canteen Services)

O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan,  (President I/c)

The facts of the case are briefly stated as follows:

1^st complainant is a veteran and senior citizen aged 78 years. He was serving in Indian Army for 24 years. He has served in the Indian Army and invariably the people of India for 24 years. He was having 24 years of illustrious service and  retired from the service on 1/4/1981 from the rank of Hony NB Subaidar which is equal to Junior Commissioned officer. He was awarded with medals for his long glorious service and good conduct. At the time of retirement he has got all service benefit like pension, gratuity and also have the facility and right of Canteen Service. The Armed Forces Military Canteen Service is managed and administrated by the 4^th opposite party and 5^th opposite party under the ministry of Defence, Government of India. The facility of Canteen
Service is a right  and privilege given to all persons who are serving in any of the armed forces like Army, Navy and Air force. It is not an affability given by anyone to any persons. It is established legal right. The facility continues even after their retirement. The Canteen Service run by first opposite party to 3^rd opposite party is governed, administrated and Managed by well defined and codified guide lines and standing instructions issued by the authority concerned from time to time.

Opposite party No.1 is the floor supervisor of the Canteen run by 3^rd opposite party.  3^rd opposite party is the Area and Administrative office through which the canteen is functioning. 2^nd opposite party is the Canteen manager and he is controlling first opposite party and canteen. 2^nd opposite party is only one of the staff in the canteen. But he is the Manager of the Canteen and is directly responsible for all the  day today affairs and functioning of the canteen. He is not at all empowered to take any decision regarding anything independently except to the extent of mere supervision.

1^st complainant after his retirement has been provided with a canteen card known as “Canteen Smart Card” bearing No.114751K SC 1611281 and  that was issued by Southern command, Pune. As per the privilege and right of this card, the 1^st complainant is legally entitled to purchase all grocery items and also liquor from the canteen. The 1^st complainant was using the canteen smart card by strictly following and adhering all the relevant rules and regulations. He has never violated any of the rules and regulation existing in this regard. But due to the discomfort of his old age and sickness and as per the medical advice and certificate issued by Dr.P.Q.Shihabudheen, Physician, Crescent Hospital, Mannarkkad on 12^th May 2011, the 1^st complainant has given due authorization to his son M.R.Ajithkumar, who is the 2^nd complainant herein and Advocate practicing in the court of Mannarkkad in Palakkad District to use the said canteen smart card for a period of 6 months continuously from June 2011 to October 2014. The said validity of authorization was being renewed for every 6 months without any break. The last authorization by the 1^st complainant was done on May 14 and its validity will expire only on 14^th October 2014. There is no  other restrictions to the dependant/authorized agent from purchasing any goods available or goods offered by the dependent of 1^st complainant.   He was also using the smart card with all precision, care and has never misused any of the provisions of law, rules or regulations existing in this regard. The 1^st complainant is having a valid or legitimate legal right to use the canteen  facility and as the services offered provided and rendered by OP1 to OP5. 1^st complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and the 1^st complainant has issued due authorization to his son M.R.Ajithkumar to use and purchase the goods and as the 2^nd complainant  is purchasing the goods from OP1 to OP4 he would also come under the purview and definition of consumer. The services of canteen are not   gratuitous acts. It is governed by various other provisions of law which too  are applicable in this regard.

The relationship between the complainants and opposite parties are of buyer – seller relationship. It is not at all related with any sovereign function of the union of India. The office will get the marginal profit by running the Canteen across the country and  the employees of the canteen that is OP1 and OP2 get the salary from the profit derived from the canteen.

 On the ill  fated day of 16/8/2014 on the strength  and right of the said authorization issued and recognized by all opposite parties except OP1, as he is not empowered either to accept or reject the authorization given to the canteen in Palakkad, run and administrated by OP3 to 5 and managed by OP2 to buy the goods. At about 11.45 am he has purchased certain goods and items which was readily available in the canteen. After selecting the grocery goods he has proceeded to the billing counter. When 2^nd complainant has reached  the billing counter,  OP1, the floor supervisor of the canteen, has stared at him and began to shout. He yelled at the 2^nd complainant and shouted at him and told that he will neither issue the bill for those  items and nor give it also.   As the act of the OP1 was  unexpected and indifferent,  but at the same time 2^nd complainant has noticed that the OP1 has given and distributed the same 8 items and no. of items and products and have given the bill also to another person, who was just standing one step before the complainant and has just taken the same items which the complainant has also chosen.

As being astonished and as being seen and experienced the discrimination in justice and partiality among the persons right in his eyes, the 2^nd complainant has very politely enquired OP1 about what is the reason for such partiality and discrimination and requested him to bill the items chosen by him and also pleaded to OP1 to treat  everyone in an equal manner. By seeing the politeness and calmness, but also his firmness and determination to resist the in justice the OP1 began to shout  scream and   scold with ugly and filthy words  and a  lot others which cannot be described in these pages as it was so filthy and condemnable to quote. So when the complainant realized that there is no point in talking with OP1,  he began to proceed to the second OP who is the Manager of the canteen to tell the incident to him. At that time the OP1 became more furious and violent and has manhandled him by forcefully holding his hands and pulled on his shirt and again ushered filthy and obnoxious words to him. He has even dared to insult him by calling various names even to his profession just like you the filthy advocate etc. and many others (The act of the OP1 is indeed the violation of all rules and regulation and amount to deficiency of service)

Thereafter and at once the 1^st OP has telephonically contacted  2^nd OP and as per the advice of the 2^nd OP, the OP1 has forcefully thrown out the 2^nd complainant by himself and with the help of security staff. The OP1 has also manhandled him by beating the complainant on his arms and his shoulder and also teared  his shirt.  OP1 has  also threatened to kill him. Due to  the above incidents the 2^nd complainant has got and caused very reasonable apprehension and fear of death.

The acts of Ops did  not end by there. But at the same time of pulling the 2^nd complainant out of the canteen, the OP1 has taken the canteen smart card from his shirt pocket. The OP1 further has tried to take the canteen authorization card forcefully. But  the complainant No.2 had run away from the premises of canteen due to the  fear of death. Even after doing the above stated Marathon of illegal deeds, criminal acts, OP1 could not succeed in his attempts. The OP1 and OP2 do not have any kind of authority or legal  right to snatch and forcefully possess and retain the canteen smart card issued to complainant No.1. The OP1 and OP2 are not the officers connected and empowered to repossess it. It is respectfully submitted that the acts of OP1 and OP2 are indeed  ultra virus acts and is per say illegal.

The acts stated above and non billing and non providing and non distribution and non supplying of items demanded and chosen by the complainant NO.1 through complainant No.2 even though these items are readily available in the canteen would amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. As the complainant No.1 is in the category of JCO, he is entitled to get all grocery items, goods and kitchen articles etc. up to Rs,6,500/- per month in addition to the prescribed quota of liquor.

Apart from the above illegal acts and illegal omissions, the OP1 and  OP2 commit another glaring and most gruesome irregularity. Most of the items supplied through the defence canteen services including the present are  high quality items, are also having  brand and trade name and are sold at very low prices compared to the open market. The manufacturers of these products give supplies and distributes guaranty/warranty cards. These guaranty/warranty cards are to be duly filled up and properly affixed their stamps. Then only the consumer would get the  benefit of  the warranty / guaranty given by the manufacturers. The OP1 and OP2 never do it for a long time. Whenever if any consumer or beneficiary demands for that the OP1 and OP2 as usual scold and ward of them from the canteen even without showing a minimum human treatment and dignity.    OP1 and OP2 also  discriminate and differentiate the consumers by maintaining and insisting separate registers for entering the canteen and availing the facilities.  No such practices are adopted in any of the canteen anywhere in India except the canteen run by OP1 and OP2. Apart from the above stated personal grievance of the complainants this Hon’ble Forum is empowered to issue an order to stop malpractices as stated above in the broad legal principle of jus-in Rem and as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and other allied laws, If so, it would be a great relief to all the consumers especially to the under privileged and voiceless, one who includes the widows of military persons and other beneficiaries.

Then the  complainant has sent a lawyer notice to OP1 and OP2 through his advocate Sri.Regimon Joseph demanding the OP1 and OP2 to return the canteen smart card bearing No.LB05040678908200R00 forth with and also to pay Rs.9,000/- towards the loss occurred for the incident which happened on 16/8/14. But instead of amicably settling the grievance, the OP1 and OP2 have lodged a false frivolous and vexatious  complaint against complainant NO.2 in the Town South  Police station, Palakkad on 26/8/2014 i.e. only after receiving the  lawyer notice of the 2^nd complainant. The averments and the allegations stated by OP1 and OP2 are needless to state that is  only a vague attempt to wriggle out their latches and has done in frenzied and panic situation and have no iota of truth in it. The 2^nd complainant is legally resisting the false case. Here in this case the actually  accused persons are OP1 and OP2. The second complainant is no way responsible and committed any such offence. Further challenging and protesting against illegal acts of any responsible person or office especially when there is glaring malpractices and irregularity  has happened will never amount to an offence.

As the complainant NO.2 is the actual aggrieved person in this incident. He  has also lodged a complaint in town south  police station  against OP1 and OP2. But that will not by itself disentitle him  to get the reliefs sought through this Hon’ble Forum. After this incident the OP1 has sent a reply to the complainant’s counsel on 28/8/2014 by Adv.V.Krishnadas. The contention stated in the reply notice sent is that the complainant is not a prime card  holder  and he has acted upon the standard procedure for canteen operations and the complainant has misbehaved in the office vehemently and caused objection in the functions and in the office duties by using obscene words in front of veterans and ladies etc. are denied vehemently. The contentions stated in the reply notice sent for and on behalf of OP1 are incorrect. This complainant takes very strong exceptions to those.

The OP2 has also sent a reply notice to the counsel of 2^nd complainant. The contentions stated in the reply notice sent by him are also denied vehemently by the 2^nd complainant. The contentions stated in the reply notice are more or less appearing  to be similar in nature, but at the same time the OP2 has stated that “until the case is finalized it is not possible to return the canteen smart card to its lawful owner such a stand taken by OP1 and OP2 is purely incorrect unsustainable and unjustifiable. In the pretext of and guise of lodging a false, frivolous and vexatious case against the complainant by itself will never could be an excuse for keeping the canteen smart card in the illegal custody of OP1 and OP2. They are not at all empowered to do it and the acts and illegal custody of the canteen smart card of the 1^st complainant has no  legal authority and was not  directed to do so by any superior officers or from any authority.

The OP1 and OP2 are the persons who have committed such acts of deficiency  in service and injustice to the complainants, other OPs are having administrative and managerial responsibilities to control OP1 and OP2. As Ops 5, 4 and 3 are the governing authority for the canteen run by OP1 and OP2,   they are vicariously  liable for the acts and deeds of OP1 and OP2. So all of them are jointly  and severally liable  to compensate the complainants.

The OP1 and OP2 have committed grave form of injustice, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The acts of OP1 and OP2 have no  legal basis. They themselves framed, formulated and implemented  rules in the canteen in their own style, which according to the complainants  have no legal basis or sanction of superior authority like OP3, OP4 and OP5. OP3 to OP5 are also necessary parties in this case to decide, determine and to bring out the whole truth. As the OP1 and OP2 actions are not done in accordance with any official sanction or authority the OP1 and OP2 were shown official capacity and personal capacity is liable to compensate these complainants. By the acts of the OP1 and OP2 the complainant has suffered tremendous mental agony and financial loss. The complainants quantify the damages to the tune of Rs.1 lakh each from both opposite parties and is also entitled to get compensation for their acts including the loss occurred to both by the non availability of the canteen service by the illegal possession and custody of canteen smart card belonging to the 1^st complainant and they are also liable for their future loss and mental agony. OP1 and OP2 are personally liable to the complainants. OP1 and OP2 are personally liable to compensate the complainants for their acts.

As the every attempt of the complainants to settle the very genuine grievances of them  failed only due to the bitter, arrogant and tightfistedness of OP1 and OP2. The complainants are now constrained to approach the Hon’ble Forum in order to redress their very genuine grievances. Hence this complaint.

The cause of action of this complaint occurred on and after 16/8/2014 when all the above incidents have happened at Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad where the OP1 and OP2 carry on  business and from where the complainants have suffered deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, injustice, deception have  happened  to the complainant and  this Hon’ble forum is empowered to entertain the complaint and grand the reliefs sought by the complainants.

Hence it  is most respectfully prayed that Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to

Admit the complaint on file, issue notice to all opposite parties and try this case in accordance with law, Hon’ble forum may be  pleased to  pass an order and strict direction to stop all malpractices and discrimination in between the smart card holders and their dependants and also those who are having valid authorization cards, also pleased to pass an order to OP1 and OP2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- each as damages by themselves and for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by them and also order to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation  for the mental agony caused to the 2^nd complainant from their assets and for this all of them may be made liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation to the complainants No.1 & 2, pass an order to pay the cost of this litigation by OP1 and OP2, grant any other ad-interim reliefs sought by the complainants during the pendency of the proceedings and this hon’ble forum deems fit to grant in interest of justice.

The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to opposite parties 1 to 5 to enter their appearance and filed their versions. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed their versions  but opposite parties 3,4 & 5 did not file their versions,  their names were called absent and they were set exparte.

In the version filed by the first opposite party, first opposite party contends that the averments by the complainant in various paras of his complaint are not correct and hence this opposite party denies the same.

 All the averments, allegations and contentions contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted or dealt with hereunder are opposed to facts and law and hence denied by the first opposite party. The petition itself is not maintainable either under law or on facts. The particulars furnished by the petitioner are grossly insufficient and sparse for the proper adjudication of the claim. The complainant is neither  a buyer nor a consumer under the Act because it is an institution run by the defense authority (military) under central govt. and OP1 is merely a govt. servant, hence it is not maintainable before this Forum. The operation and administration of the military canteen is well defined and executed by serving retired officials and as per standard operating procedures issued by Brigadier administration head quarters at Andhra Pradesh Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Kerala regions.

Complainants have no locus standi to challenge alleged issue stated in the complaint against OP No.1. It is a dispute relating to Govt. service matters, his retire benefits (pensioner benefits) i.e. challenge against the transaction with state or its instrumentalities and thereby this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint against OP No.1

Allegations contained in the complaint are malafide, vexatious and frivolous. It is only to harass the opposite parties. Hence this hon’ble Forum may saddle complainant with costs of this OP no.1 to incur expenses for contesting the complaint.

Canteen facilities are not a legal right of the Ex.Serviceman. It is considered as extension of service privileges even after the termination of their service as a good will gesture by the military authorities like any other military service.

                 The 1^st complainant is the cardholder, he and his wife are only entitled for canteen benefits. 2^nd complainant is a practicing lawyer,  hence not a beneficiary of the canteen system. As per the rules benefits entitled for those are 1.The card holder and his/her spouse 2)son, who is below  the age of 25 years. 3)Daughters till they get married. The specific   prescribed rules are violated here by 1^st and 2^nd complainants. Hence 2^nd  complaint is  not entitled for any benefits under military canteen.

There is no customer relationship between complainants and opposite parties. The salary of the OP No.1 is provided by the central govt.  The 2^nd complainant suppressed all material things, violated the rules, created false documents and asked for more items which are exceeding the limit as prescribed to a proxy buyer, which are provided as per the assured availability scheme that are already exhibited in the notice board.

OP NO.1  only acted upon the standard procedure for canteen management and he has done all the things as per the conduct of code and discipline. The 2^nd complainant asked for more items exceeding the limits prescribed to a proxy buyer, which is provided as per the assured availability scheme. Opposite party advised that the 2^nd complainant is not a prime card holder to follow the instruction of the canteen. At this juncture the other ex-service personnel waiting for billing get annoyed by the rude behavior and usage of unparlimentary language amidst senior veterans and ladies by the 2^nd complainant.

Immediately after the incident Ops (Military management) reported before the proper authority (head office) As per the directions of the competent authority the office management informed the incident and Town south police registered a crime against 2^nd complainant as crime 1269/2014 u/s.447, 294(b) 506(I).

The 2^nd complainant has done illegal things, 1^st complainant aged 78 years is a heart patient, if so who was consuming liquor (6 bottles per month) purchased from the canteen on that day on which the incident  took place.

The complainants are not entitled for damage of Rs.1 lakh each from this OP1, because as a holder of the canteen card, 1^st complainant is to be duty bound and responsible to ensure that the canteen facility given to the 1^st complainant by the military authority is  not misused by any one (2^nd complainant). In such cases the canteen management can confiscate the canteen card and order a military court of inquiry to establish the fact of misuse of canteen facilities by any beneficiary of the programme.

There  is no cause of action alleged on and after 16/8/2014. Moreover the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party. The staffs working in the institution are not arrayed as parties. This is a frivolous complaint filed before the Hon’ble Forum to avoid criminal consequences and military court of inquiry.

This opposite party also contends that complainants have raised an exorbitant claim, which is not commensurate  the damages sustained by them. The entire case of the complainant  has to be put to strict proof. This opposite party is an unnecessary party to the proceedings and also dragged unnecessarily to the legal proceedings, because of this, the govt. is sustaining loss. The complainant is not entitled for any additional amount or interest as claimed in the petition. Under these  circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to accept the contentions in this version and dismiss the complaint with cost to this opposite party.

 In the version filed by 2^nd opposite party it is contended that all the allegations in the complaint except those specifically admitted here under are incorrect and hence denied by this opposite party. The complaint is not maintainable in law or on  facts. Petitioner is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act. This petition is filed with a malafide intention to harass this opposite party. The petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the petition. The petitioner is put to strict proof regarding the contentions made in paragraphs of the petition. The complaint is filed without any bonafides and with ulterior motive to extract undeserved amounts from the opposite parties.  The complainant is put to strict proof regarding the contentions made in the complaint.

The canteen facilities are not a legal right of the ex-servicemen, it is considered as extension of service privileges even after their active service  as  goodwill gestures by the military authorities, like any other Govt. services. The ex-serviceman  and the proxy buyers are advised to follow the instructions as specified from time to time, which are prominently displayed over the notice boards of Military canteen and other military institutions by the canteen management committee. The operation and the administration of the military canteen is well defined and executed by serving / retired military officers and as per standing operating procedure issued on 30/6/2011 by Brigadier Administration Headquarters Andhra Pradhesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala area (HQ ATNK and Area) The  petitioner Mr.Ramaguptan Havildar (Honorary Naik Subedar) is the card holder and he and his wife are only entitled for canteen benefits. M.R.Ajithkumar is an advocate, he is not a beneficiary of the canteen system. As per rule the following are only entitled for canteen facilities.

(a) The card holder and his/her spouse

(b)Son(s) who are below  25 years of age

(c.)Daughter(s) till they get married.

So the petitioner Ajithkumar is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. He can’t file such a complaint before this Forum. Hence the petition may be dismissed

The allegation that the complainant and opposite parties have buyer and seller relationship and the office will make marginal profit by running the canteen across the country and employees of canteen are getting salary from the profit derived from the canteen are  incorrect and denied by this opposite party. Canteen is not working on profit oriented, it is a welfare measure which is being extended for efficient management of canteen affairs as well as to ensure better services to the customers.

If the card holder or the individual deputed by the card holder had experienced any kind of misbehavior by canteen staff / or other administrative  difficulties in shopping at military canteen, the ex-serviceman has to approach / write to the canteen management located at Chennai, which is well known to the Ex.Havildar (Honorary Naik Subedar) M.Ramagupthan, who was a member of ex.servicemen organization of Mannarkkad, Palakkad Dist.

The allegations that on 16/8/14 at 11.45 am the complainant purchased goods and items available in the canteen, when he reached billing counter, the 1^st opposite party started shouting  against the complainant  and told that he want the bill for those items and act of the OP1 was unexpected and indifferent but at the same time complainant noticed that OP1 has given and distributed the same items to  another person,  who was just standing one step before the complainant are  totally denied by this opposite party. The restrictions on quantity of certain items are prominently displayed on the notice board for more than 3 years which is well known to the complainant, inspite of that he had  an argument with billing staff.

The allegation  that all ex.servicemen are not given equal services is highly incorrect and hence denied by this opposite party. The service provided by the canteen is same to all,  but the purchase limit varies with ranks they held during service. This point is misinterpreted by Ajithkumar. There is no discrimination in providing service to the members of canteen. The another  allegation that the OP1 has used ugly and filthy words and manhandled the complainant by holding his hands and pulled on his shirt and against him uttered filthy words is incorrect and denied by this opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party.

The allegations that on the advice of this opposite party, the OP1 has forcefully thrown out the 2^nd complainant  and manhandled the complainant on his arms and his shoulder and also teared his shirt and OP1 has taken the smart card and now it is in the illegal custody of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are  incorrect and denied by this opposite party.

As the holder of the canteen card ex.Havildar (Honorary Naik Subedar) M.Ramaguptan is duty bound and responsible to ensure that the canteen facilities given to him by the military authorities are not misused by anyone. In  such cases, the canteen management can confiscate the canteen card and order a military court of inquiry to establish the fact of misuse of canteen facilities by any beneficiary of the programme. In this case, it is very evident that the card has been misused by Mr.M.R. Ajithkumar,  son of Havildar (Honarary Naik Subedar) M Ramagupthan who states that his father is 78  years  old and  suffering from heart  problems, if so who was consuming the liquor (6 bottles per month) entitled for his father, on the day of incident also Mr.M.R. Ajithkumar had purchased six bottles of liquor on behalf of his father (Bill attached as Appx.B) It is also evident that the bottles were kept under the custody  of Mr. M.R. Ajithkumar for a few days which is an offence by itself under the Abkari Act of Kerala Govt.

The allegations that non billing and  non providing and non distribution and non supplying items would amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency  of service is incorrect and denied by this opposite party. The petitioner is not entitled to dictate the terms to this opposite party. This opposite party is under the control of Chairman of ATNK & ESM canteens. Opposite parties 1 & 2 are adopting the guide  lines and procedures passed by the Army head quarters. This opposite party has no role to play in adopting the procedure. He is only a manager who controls the Manapullikavu Military canteen. The allegation that 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties without showing a minimum human treatment to the customers and also they discriminate and differentiate the consumers by maintaining and insisting  separate register for entering the canteen facilities are incorrect and denied by this opposite party. This opposite party received the lawyer notice from the complainant and he has sent a reply with true facts. The contention raised in the reply notice may be treated as part of the counter statement. The opposite party has filed a complaint before the south police station against the complainant and police had registered the FIR against the complainant. In order to counter blast the complainant has filed this false complaint against this opposite party before this forum. This opposite party has taken action as per the standard operating procedure of military canteen. Moreover he has recorded the incident in “Incident reporting Register” There is no deficiency of service as stated in the petition. The complaint itself is not maintainable. The complaint remedy if at all any does not lie before this Hon’ble Forum. In fact there is no grievance, no cause of action at all. The complaint has been filed without any bonafides, factual or legal basis to harass this opposite party. No mental agony has been sustained. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and damages and also Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in services from this opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount towards such claims. This opposite party has no liability to pay any amounts at all to the complainant.

This opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as stated in the petition. Complainants willfully not appeared before court of inquiry ordered by Head quarters ATNK Area on 16^th December 2014.

This opposite party reserves the right to file additional counter statement if circumstances warrant.

Hence it is respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble  Forum may be pleased to accept the contentions of this opposite party and dismiss the petition with the compensatory costs of this opposite party.

Complainants and opposite parties 1 & 2 filed their affidavits and additional affidavits. Notices to opposite parties 3,4 & 5 served, their names called absent and they were set exparte.  Complainant filed IA 228/15 to direct opposite parties 1 & 2 to return the smart card (Military canteen card) to the complainant, opposite parties filed counter. IA 228/15 allowed after hearing. Complainant filed IA 380/15 and counter filed by opposite parties. After hearing IA 380/15 allowed. OP filed IA 335/16 seeking  permission to cross examine the complainant. In the interest of justice IA 335/16 allowed and 2^nd complainant was cross examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. Complainant filed IA 135/17 seeking permission to cross examine opposite parties 1 & 2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 submitted no objection, hence IA 135/17  allowed. Witness was examined as PW2.  Additional documents  marked as Ext.A11 to A19. OP1 present and was cross examined as DW1. OP2 also present and was cross examined as DW2. Ext.B1 to B12 were marked except Ext.B1 which was marked with objection and excepts Ext.B8 to B12 which were marked subject to proof. OP2 filed IA 237/18 seeking permission to cross examine the 1^st complainant. Counter filed. Considering the age of the 1^st complainant  2^nd OP ordered to file interrogatories which 2^nd opposite party did and complainant filed answers to the interrogatories. Complainant and OP2 filed notes of arguments. Both parties were heard.

The following issues arise  in this case for consideration by this Hon’ble   Forum

1)Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2

2)If so, the relief and cost available to the complainants

Issues 1 & 2 in detail

Ext.A1 to A19 are produced by the complainants to defend their pleas. Ext.A1 is a Photostat copy of the canteen smart card  belonging to the 1^st complainant. It shows name of the card holder, his rank, card number and instructions. Ext.A2 is Photostat copy of authorization card which proves that first complainant has given authorization to second complainant, his son, Mr.M.R.Ajithkumar as his authorized dependent which also shows medical certificate of first complainant, counter signature,  validity of authorization etc. Ext.A3 is a copy  of lawyer notice issued by the complainant to the first opposite party’s counsel which calls upon the first opposite party to return the canteen smart card and pay Rs.9,000/- towards  the loss of earning and conveyance charges and  the actual loss caused by purchase of goods in the open market and to tender an unconditional apology to the second complainant.  Ext.A4  is copy of the lawyer notice issued by complainant’s counsel to the 2^nd OP which calls upon the latter to return the canteen smart card. Ext.A5(1) is reply sent by 1^st opposite party through his lawyer (Mr.V.Krishnadas) to complainant’s counsel. Ext.A5(2) is reply sent by 2^nd opposite party in person to the complainant’s counsel. Ext.A6 series show bills issued  to the complainant  on various dates for the purchase of goods, groceries, liquor etc.  ExtA7 series shows bills issued to the complainant on various dates for the purchase of goods, groceries daily consumables,  liquor etc. Ext.A8 series show bills issued to the complainant on various dates for the purchase of goods, groceries, daily consumables,  liquor etc. Ext.A9series shows bills issued to the complainants on various dates for the purchase of goods, groceries, daily consumables etc. from general shops and from military canteen.  Ext.A10 series are bills showing purchase of various items. Ext.A11 is a taxi receipt dated 16/8/14 issued by Mr.Ratheesh (driver of the taxi) to the complainant. Ext.A12 are acknowledgement card and postal receipt  issued by 2^nd complainant’s advocate (original).  Ext.A13 is postal cover of the letter sent by 2^nd opposite party to 2^nd complainants advocate (original) which shows receipt of the above letter. Ext.A14  is  incident   reporting letter sent by the 2^nd opposite party (original) which shows description of the incident happened on 16/8/14. Ext.A15 is a postal cover of letter issued by 2^nd opposite party to the complainant’s advocate. Ext.A16 photocopy of letter issued by 1^st complainant to Colonel, MCO Coimbatore. Ext.A16 proves that 1^st complainant has sent a reply letter to Col Officer Commanding 711/MC/MF detachment Coimbatore stating late receipt of the letter No.1107/misc/A dated 11/12/14. Ext.A17 is original letter issued by 2nd opposite party to 1^st complainant stating that for canteen smart card activation first complainant is advised to report in person to GPC, Palakkad. Ext.A18 is a letter issued by first complainant to 2^nd opposite party  (original acknowledgment card and postal receipt).  Ext.A19 is circular / notice showing the pricing of Indian made foreign liquor and beer by KSBC.

Ext.B1 to B12  are produced by the opposite parties to justify their contentions.  Ext.B1 which is marked with objections shows recommendations of the officiating officer, Coimbatore and findings of the board. Ext.B2 is FIR  of crime No.1269/2014 of Town South Police station (certified copy). Ext.B3 is incident reporting letter (certified copy) which shows description of the incident happened in the military canteen Palakkad on 16/8/14. Ext.B4 is certified copy of seizure mahasar which shows description of the incident. Ext.B5  is certified copy of scene mahasar which shows a brief description of what happened in the military canteen at Palakkad on 16/8/14.  Ext.B6 is a certified copy of memorandum of evidence in crime No.1269/2014. Ext.B7 is a final report  of Kerala Police in Form No.5 which shows FIR No., date, Act as IPC, sections, name and address of the investigation officers, name of complainant  particulars of accused person, charges under section 448, 294(b), 506(1) IPC of South Police station crime No.1269/14 submitted by SI of  Police
South Police station Palakkad dated 20/9/14 addressed to hon’ble judicial first class magistrate court No.III Palakkad. Ext.B8 is marked subject to proof. It is a certified copy of the 161 statement of Sivadasan, Kesavadasan and Vasudevan. Ext.B9 is incident reporting letter issued by 2^nd opposite party to the canteen cell, QMG branch Chennai (marked subject to proof). Ext.B10 are recommendations of officiating station commander, Coimbatore on the court of enquiry proceedings, investigating into the circumstances under which the incident of misbehavior by a customer  inside the golden palm canteen on 16/8/14 (marked subject to proof). Ext.B11 – News letter issue of September 2012 which shows introduction of  Assured Availability Scheme in the Palakkad canteen, this letter issued by Golden Palm Canteen Palakkad (marked subject to proof) Ext.B12 – News letter issued by 2^nd opposite party  to the District Sainik Welfare Officer of Palakkad (Marked subject to proof) which proves the prevalence of assured availability scheme in the Palakkad canteen since 2012.

                We have perused  the affidavits and documentary evidences  submitted by both parties to this Commission and we observe that the first complainant after 24 years  of service  retired from military service  on 1/4/1981 from the rank of Hony NB Subedar and at the time of  his retirement  he has got all service benefits like pension, gratuity and also the facility  and right of  canteen service. This armed forces military canteen  service is managed by 4^th and 5^th opposite parties under the Ministry of defence of Govt.of India. The facility of canteen service is a right and privilege given to persons serving in army, navy and air force.   This facility continues even after retirement.  Also 1^st complainant and his wife and other persons are also entitled to get the benefits as per governing laws. This canteen service is run by opposite parties 1 to 3, governed and administered and managed by well defined and codified  guidelines and standing instructions issued by the concerned authorities from time to time. First complainant after his retirement has been provided with a canteen card known as “canteen smart card” which was issued by southern command as per which first complainant is legally entitled to purchase all groceries, items, and liquor from the canteen. The 2^nd complainant is the son of the 1^st complainant and an advocate practicing in the Mannarkkad court who is given due authorization to use the above canteen smart card by the first complainant which is clear from Ext.A2.  Thus the 2^nd complainant was an authorized agent and son of the first complainant which is proved by Ext.A2. First complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the 2^nd complainant who is given due authorization to purchase goods for the first complainant from the above canteen. We observe that the relationship between the 2^nd complainant and opposite parties are of buyer-seller relationship. We also understand that on 16/8/14 the second complainant went to the said canteen at Palakkad to purchase certain goods available in the canteen. After selecting the goods he went to  the billing counter where the said unfortunate incident is said to have occurred. It is seen that the first opposite party did not bill the items chosen by the second complainant, then the second complainant proceeded to the second opposite party, but he could not due to the happening of the unfortunate incident with the first opposite party. We observe in this regard that due to the unfortunate incident second complainant could not purchase the items from the canteen and the canteen smart card is also allegedly taken from the shirt pocket of the second complainant forcefully by the first opposite party. We view in this connection that non billing and non providing, non distribution and non supply of demanded and chosen items of the first complainant through the second complainant, even though they are readily available items in the canteen, constituted grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties 1 & 2. We also observe that the manufacturers of products sold in the above canteen give supplies and distribute guarantee/warranty cards which are to be duly filled up and to be affixed properly their stamps and details of bills, date, etc., then only the customers would get the benefits of the warranty / guarantee given by the manufactures which are not allegedly  done by the first and second opposite parties for a long time and even now, which also constitutes grave  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of these opposite parties 1 & 2, which would deny to the canteen customers the benefits of guarantee / warrantee cards issued to them for the products purchased by them from the above canteen. We also observe that the first and second opposite parties allegedly discriminate and differentiate between  the customers by maintaining separate registers for entering the canteen and availing canteen facilities, which practice is adopted by the first and second opposite parties at Palakkad canteen and nowhere in India which is also seen as a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the first  and second opposite parties. We also view that the first and second opposite parties are not empowered to keep the canteen smart card belonging to the first complainant in their custody. On the part of opposite parties 1 & 2  there were no directions to do so by any superior officer or by any other authority. In this respect also we find commission of deficiency  in  service and unfair trade practice from the side  of opposite parties 1 & 2. We also view that although the first and second opposite parties have committed the above defaults and deficiency in service  towards the complainants, the other opposite parties namely opposite parties 3 to 5 cannot be spared or discharged from their vicarious liability towards the complainants, as other opposite parties (3,4 & 5) are having administrative, managerial responsibilities  and control  over  the first and second opposite parties. Opposite parties 3,4 & 5 are the governing authority for the canteen run by opposite parties 1 & 2. Hence opposite parties 3,4 & 5 are vicariously liable for the acts and deeds of opposite parties 1 & 2 and all opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainants.  We also understand that the acts and deeds of the opposite parties 1 & 2 have no legal basis  or sanction  from superior  authorities  i.e. sanction  from opposite parties 3,4 & 5, who are to decide and bring out truth. We also view that by the non availability of the canteen services by the act of allegedly illegally possessing the canteen smart card belonging to the first complainant, the complainants have suffered financial loss and consequent mental agony from the date of dispossessing of the canteen smart card.  We also observe that  by non appearance  of opposite parties 3,4 and 5  before this Forum, they are not supporting  the acts of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and during the period of one year when the canteen smart card was in the possession of opposite parties 1 & 2. Second complainant was seen deprived of the rights and privileges of the use of canteen smart card and consequently complainants have suffered much financial loss. We also find that there is considerable variations between the prices  and quality of the products available in the military canteen and the prices and quality of goods and services  available in the open market. Complainants are seen to have suffered heavy loss, quality wise and price wise. The sales warranty  and guarantee are governed by Sale of Goods Act and it is also applicable to the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore the purchase of goods from the military canteen and services availed of from the canteen by the complainants do have relationship   of buyer-seller  or consumer-seller relation. Also we understand that in this case the whole issue happened only when the second complainant questioned the injustice and discrimination meted out to the second complainant by the opposite parties 1 & 2 and  imposing of arbitrarily made rules by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties without any sanction / authority of opposite parties 3,4 & 5 and without any legal backing.  At the same time, we observe that the first complainant is the card holder (canteen smart card holder) and he and his wife  are only entitled for canteen benefits and second complainant who is  an advocate is not a beneficiary of the canteen. He is only an authorized representative of the first complainant. He cannot be considered as a beneficiary because as per rules only the card holder, his or her spouse, sons below  25 years of age  and unmarried daughters  can be considered as beneficiaries.  From his deposition also as PW1 before this Forum it is clear that 2^nd complainant  is above 25 years of age and this shows second complainant cannot be considered  as a beneficiary. We understand that the military canteen is not a profit making organization run by the 4^th and 5^th opposite parties for the benefit of ex-servicemen under the defense ministry of Govt. of India. We also observe that the disputes  regarding the canteen facilities should be handled by  canteen management authorities at Chennai and  there is purchase limits fixed  for the members, according to their ranks in their service. We also  view that complainants have not produced any evidence to show that prices charges for  goods sold in the canteen were excessive or   prices of the goods were manipulated  or they suffered loss from defects or from poor quality or lower quality. Second complainant has a specific case that when he went to the billing  counter,  the 1^st opposite party objected to billing of certain items and products which were taken by the second complainant  beyond the permissible limits and this limit  is set  for selecting certain goods  to make them available for all card holders and this procedure is made on the basis of “standard operating procedure” and “assured availability scheme” prevailing in this canteen made by opposite parties 4 & 5 over which the opposite parties 1 & 2 have no control. Further we understand that the second complainant is not a prime card holder to follow up the instructions of the canteen, unlike the first complainant who is a prime card holder. We also view that this complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parities because the complainants have not been seen to have impleaded the staffs working in the canteen  in the party array.  We also observe that canteen facilities are not legal rights of the ex-servicemen but  expression of service privileges  after the termination of their services as goodwill gestures.

In this connection deposition by Sivadasan and Kesavadasan are also to be noted.

Deposition by Mr.Sivadasan (Floor Supervisor) DW1 before this Forum is as follows:

F\nbv¡v Øm]\¯n ^vtfmÀ kq¸ÀsshkÀ BWv. Rm³ Unt¹ma C³ I¼yq«À lmÀUv shbÀ BWv. Fsâ hnZym`ymk tbmKyX. Rm³ BÀanbn 28 hÀjw  kÀÆokn D­mbncp¶p. Rm³ kpt_ZmÀ Bbn dn«bÀ sNbvX BfmWv. {]oUn{Kn Iw¹oÁv sNbvXncp¶nà kÀÆokn {]thin¡pt¼mÄ. H.]n.2 BWv Øm]\¯nse amt\PÀ. CXn 1..mw lÀPn¡mc³ kpt_ZmÀ AÃ. At±lw  FIvkv.lhnÂZmÀ F¶ dm¦v BWv. CuIz to slUv tIm¬Ì_nÄ dm¦v BWv. At±l¯n\v Imâvo³ kvamÀ«v ImÀUv tlmÄUÀ BWv F¶v a\Ênem¡nbn«p­v. As±l¯n\v \nbam\pkrXambn«pÅ t{Kmkdn sFÁwkpw s]ÀanÁUv Bb enIzÀ sFÁwkpw hm§n¡phm³ At±l¯n\v A[nImc AhImiap­v. At±l¯nsâ HmXssdkvUv GPâv BWv 2..mw lcnPn¡mc³ F¶v a\Ênem¡nbn«p­v. B Imcys¯¡pdn¨v F\nbv¡v  XÀ¡sam¶panÃ. 2..mw lcnPn¡mc³ D]tbmKn¡p¶Xv HmXssdkvUv Un¸âv­v ImÀUv BWv F¶pw F\n¡dnbmw.  Imâvo³ kÀÆokpIÄ km[mcW P\§Ä¡v D]tbmKn¡m³ km[n¡nÃ. BXv BÀan t]Àk¬kv, FIvkv.kÀÆokvsa³ (kÀÆokv & dn«tbÀUv) Bbn«pÅ P\§Ä¡pÅ ssdÁpw, {]nhntÃPpw BWv F¶v ]dªm icnbÃ. ssdÁpw {]nhntÃPpw X½nepÅ hyXymkw F´msW¶v F\nbv¡dnbnÃ. amt\PÀ¡v am{Xta Adnbq. AXv AhcpsS AhImiaÃ. Hcp k_vknUn Kh: sImSp¡p¶Xv am{XamWv tKmÄU¬ ]mw Imâvo³ F¶Xv Hcp GP³kn BWv. Rm³ AhnSs¯ Hcp Øncw Poh\¡mc\mWv. Fs¶ \nban¨Xv slUv IzmÀt«gvkv Z£n¬ `mcXv Gcnbbn \n¶mWv. CâvÀhyq Ignªv  At¸mbnâv sNbvXXv.  AXn\pÅ tcJIÄ Hm^okn kq£n¨p hcp¶p­v. A§ns\ AhnsS 17 Øncw Ìm^v D­v. ]n.U»p.2 Bbncp¶ kZm\µ³.hn.]n. F¶ Bsf Adnbmw. At±lw AhnSs¯ XmXv¡menI Ìm^v BWv. Ct¸mÄ ]ncn¨phn«p. Rm³ AhnSs¯  Øncw Ìm^v F¶v ImWnbv¡p¶ tcJIÄ lmPcm¡phm³ _p²nap«nÃ. F\nbv¡v i¼fw Xcp¶Xv GP³kn BWv. Hcp Kh: Poh\¡mc\v In«p¶ FÃm B\pIqey§fpw F\nbv¡v In«p¶p­v. Fs´Ãmw B\pIqey§fmWv F\nbv¡v e`n¡p¶Xv F¶Xv amt\PÀ¡v am{Xta AdnbpÅp. AUvan\nkvt{SÁohv Imcy§fn F\nbv¡v bsXmcp A[nImchpanÃ. Rm³ sN¿p¶ FÃm {]hr¯nIfpw amt\PdpsS \nÀt±i {]ImcamWv. tIihZmkv (H.]n.2) am{Xta AhnSs¯ Øncw tPmen¡mc\mbn«pÅp F¶v ]dªm F\nbv¡v AdnbnÃ. Imâvo\n ]Àt¨bvkv sN¿m³ hcp¶ BfpIsf \nbam\pkcWamb ImÀUv tlmÄUÀ BtWm F¶v shcnss^ sNbvXp am{Xta AXn\It¯bv¡v {]thin¸n¡mdpÅp. Rm³ Cu tIknse 2..mw lcnPn¡mcs\ XSªp \nÀ¯n Ak`yw ]dªv sImÃpsa¶v ]dªv `ojWns¸Sp¯n F¶v Btcm]n¨v Su¬ ku¯v t]meokv tÌj\n tIkv ^b sNbvXn«p­v. AXnt¸mÄ sP.F^v.kn.Fw.3 hnNmcW \S¶p sIm­ncn¡p¶p. Imâvosâ  ap³hi¯v hnkntÁgvkn\v Ccn¡m³ kvt]kv D­v. kn.kn.226/15sâ tIknsâ Bkv]Zamb kw`hw \S¶ Znhkw 2..mw lcnPn¡mc³ \nbam\pkrXamb ImÀUv tlmÄUÀ F¶ \nebv¡v Xs¶bmWv Imâvosâ AIt¯bv¡v {]thin¸n¨Xv. kw`hw \S¶p F¶v ]dbs¸Sp¶ Znhkw 2..mw lcnPn¡mcsâ _nÃv AS¨n«nÃ.  F{X cq]bpsS t{Kmkdn BtWm ImÀUv {]Imcw ]Àt¨kv sNt¿­Xv F¶v F\nbv¡v AndbnÃ. F{X cq]bv¡v t{Kmkdn hm§n¡m³ ]Ápw F¶Xnsâ IW¡v Kh: I¿n D­v. F{X F®w hm§n¡msa¶v Imâvo³ amt\Pvsaâv Xocpam\nbv¡pw. FÃmÀ¡pw km[\§Ä In«¯¡ coXnbn F®w amt\Pvsaâv \nÀ®bn¡p¶XmWv. F\nbv¡v 8000/ cq]bpsS t{Kmkdn ]Àt¨kv sN¿m\pÅ ssdÁv D­v. Cu XpIbv¡v Fs´Ãmw km[\§Ä ]Àt¨kv sN¿Wsa¶v Xocpam\nbv¡m\pÅ ssdÁv ImÀUv tlmÄUdn\mWv. ImÀUv tlmÄUÀ F{X F®w   hoXw Fs´Ãmw km[\§Ä ]Àt¨kv sN¿msa¶Xns\¡pdn¨v {]tXyI dqÄ Dt­m  F¶v amt\PÀ¡v am{Xta Adnbq. t\m«okv t_mÀUn {]ZÀin¸n¨n«p­v. B Imâvo\n kn.Fkv.Un. sFÁwkv am{XtabpÅp. t\m¬ kn.Fkv.Un. sFÁwkv R§fpsS Imâvo\n hn¡mdnÃ. t\m¬ kn.Fkv.Un. sFÁwkv CSIeÀ¯n AhnsS hn¡mdp­v F¶v ]dªm icnbÃ. ImÀUpIÄ ]nSn¨psh¡m\pÅ A[nImchpw F\nbv¡nÃ. lcnPn¡mcpsS ImÀUv Rm³ ]nSn¨p sh¨n«nÃ. tImSXn D¯chv {]Imcw Xncn¨v sImSp¡p¶Xn\v ap¼v Xs¶ AXv Xncn¨v hm§nt¡mfm³ cPnkvt{SÀUv t]mÌv Bbn I¯v Ab¨ncp¶p. s]Àankn_nÄ Bb sFÁwkv ]Àt¨kv sNbvXm _nÃv ASn¨psImSp¡m³ bmsXmcp XSÊhpanÃ. _nÃv ASn¨psImSp¯n«p­v.  AjzthÀUv Ahbne_nenÁn kvIow F´msW¶v a\Ênem¡nbn«p­v. FÃmhÀ¡pw FÃm km[\hpw In«m³ th­nbmWv. BXv Bcv X¿mdm¡n F¶v F\n¡dnbnÃ. Hm^okv Imcy§fn R§Ä Bcpw ssIIS¯mdnÃ. AXv amt\PÀ¡v am{Xta Adnbq. Ìm³tUÀUv s{]mkoPnbÀ t^mÀ Imâvo³  Hm¸tdjs\¡pdn¨v amt\PÀ R§tfmSv ]dbp¶ hnhc§sf F\nbv¡v Adnbq.  AXv X¿mdm¡p¶Xv Z£n¬ `mcXv bqWnÁv BWv. AXnsâ  UosÁbnÂkv amt\PÀ¡v am{Xta Adnbq. AsXÃmw tIm¬^nU³jy sdt¡mÀUvkv BWv.  B s{]mkoPnbdns\¡pdn¨v  adp]Sn Ab¡p¶ kabw Rm³ h¡oen\v \nÀt±iw sImSp¯n«nÃ. A{]Imcw  Fsâ t\m«okn ImWp¶Xv icnbÃ. ImÀUv {]Imcw 8,000/  t{Kmkdnbpw, 6 t_m«nÂkpw F\nbv¡v ]Àt¨kv sN¿m³ km[n¡pw. Iw¹bnâvnsâ ImÀUv {]Imcw 5500/- t{Kmkdnbpw 6 t_m«nÂkpw ]Àt¨kv sN¿m³ ssdÁv D­v. Rm³ aZy]n¡mdpt­m F¶ tNmZy¯n\v F\nbv¡v D¯cw ]dbm³ CãanÃ.  AsXsâ t]gvkW Imcy§fmWv. F{X t_m«n Rm³ hm§n¡mdp­v F¶pw, F{X F®w D]tbmKn¡p¶p F¶pw ]dbm³ F\nbv¡v CãanÃ. (Counsel for OP1 objected the question) Rm³ Fsâ AÀlXs¸« 6 t_m«nÂkv ]Àt¨kv sNbvXv ]pd¯v AanX hnebv¡v hn¡mdpt­m F¶ tNmZy¯n\v Rm³ D¯cw ]dbm³ _m²yØ\Ã. 2..mw lÀPn¡mc³ \nbam\pkrXamb ImÀUv tlmÄUÀ BbXv ImcWw At±ls¯ XSbm³ F\nt¡m amt\PÀt¡m A[nImcanà F¶pw ]dbp¶p. (Q) Rm³ Hcp hn[¯nepw XSªn«nÃ. (A) FIvkn.F.5 tUm¡psaâv H.]n.2 H¸n«n«v Ab¨n«pÅ tUm¡psaâv BWv. AXn tIkv Ignªm am{Xta ImÀUv Xncn¨v sImSp¡pIbpÅp F¶v FgpXnbXns\¡pdn¨v F\nbv¡dnbnÃ. amt\PÀ¡v am{Xta Adnbq. ImÀUv IfÎv sN¿Wsa¶v t\m«okv Ab¨n«p­v F¶v am{XamWv Rm³ a\Ênem¡nbn«pÅXv.  1..mw lcnPn¡mcsâ HmXssdkvUv GPâv F¶ \nebv¡v 2..mw lcnPn¡mc\pw At±l¯nsâ FÃm ssdÁpw In«pw. Imâvo³ _p¡vkv  sabnsâbn³ sN¿p¶p­v. (1) Officers, (2)JCO’s (3)Senior Citizens & Widows (4) General Category. CXn 1..mw lcnPn¡mc³ hcp¶Xv sP.kn.H. ImÁKdnbnemWv. Imâvo³  XpS§nb ImeL«w apX 1..mw lcnPn¡mc³ AhnsS  hcmdps­¶ Imcyw F\nbv¡dnbnÃ. F´psIm­mWv 4 _p¡v sh¨n«pÅ hnthN\w  F¶Xv F\n¡dnbnÃ. amt\PÀ¡v am{Xta Adnbq. Imâvo³  tÌmÀkv Un¸mÀ«vsaâv Do’s and Don’ts F¶ kÀ¡pedns\¡pdn¨v F\nbv¡dnbnÃ. FIvkn.F.2 tcJ {]Imcw CXnse 2..mw lcnPn¡mc\mWv HmXssdtkj³ 2011 apX sImSp¯n«pÅXv. kw`hw \S¶p F¶v ]dbs¸Sp¶ Znhkw A¶v sXÁmb cPnÌdn F³SÀ sNbvXv At±lw AI¯v IS¶Xv. B ZnhkaÃmsX thsd Znhk§fnepw C¯c¯n F³SÀ sNbvXn«nÃ. Rm³ Cu Imâvo\n \n¶mWv ]Àt¨kv sN¿mdv. ]pds¯ Imâvo\n ]Àt¨kv sN¿mdnÃ. CXnse 2..mw lcnPn¡mc\v D­mbn«pÅ  \ã¯n\v Rm\pw H.]n.2Dw t]gvkWnen,. F¯n¡en eb_nÄ BsW¶v ]dªm icnbÃ. lcnPnbn Bhiys¸Sp¶ \ã]cnlmcw sImSp¡m³ R§Ä¡v _m[yXbnÃ..  Untk_nÄUv Bb  BfpIsf R§Ä  Imâvo\n  {]thin¸n¡mdp­v.  A§ns\ {]thin¡pt¼mÄ ImÀUv tlmÄUÀ  am{Xta H¸nSmdpÅp. IqsS hcp¶ BfpIsfsIm­v H¸nSmdn¡mdnÃ. 2 lcnPn¡mcsâ Aѳ Untk_nÄvUv  Bbn«pÅ AfmWv Fs¶m F\nbv¡cnbmw. Ft¸mgpw Imâvo\n hcp¶ BfmWv.

Re-examination

Htc km[\w 5500/ cq]bv¡pw hm§m³ lcnPn¡mc\v hm§n¡m³ km[n¡p¶XÃ. HmXssdkvUv Un¸âvU­v F¶ Hcp ImÀUv Cjyp sN¿mdp­v.

With Permission Cross

skbnÂkv SmIvkv sImSp¡mdpt­m F¶ Imcyw amt\PÀ¡v am{Xta Adnbp..        

Deposition by Major Kesavadasan (Canteen Manager before this Forum DW2)

Rm³ {KmPpthÁv BWv. Rm³ taPÀ dm¦nepÅ BfmWv. H.]n.1 Fsâ Iogn kÀÆnkn Ccn¡pt¼mÄ tPmen sNbvXn«nÃ. 3….5 IqSnb FXnÀI£nIÄ BscÃmamWv F¶dnbmw. Ahscbpw Rm³ sd{]kâv sN¿p¶p­v. AXn\pÅ Authorisation  tImSXnbn lmPcm¡nbn«p­v.  Rm³ sImSp¯ Hcp tcJbpw A§ns\ HmXssdkv sNbvXXmbn ImWnà F¦n F\nbv¡dnà HmXssdtkj³ X¶Xv F¶msW¶v IrXyambn AdnbnÃ. 2014emWv. sNbÀam³ BWv Fs¶ A[nImcs¸Sp¯nbXv. H.]n.3 BWv Fs¶ A[nImcs¸Sp¯nbncp¶Xv. H.]n.1 Cu Øm]\¯nse XmXv¡menI Poh\¡mcWmWv. 60 hbÊv hscbmWv H.]n.1sâ kÀÆokv  DÅXv. Cu Øm]\¯n C³Ukv{Snb dqÄkv, te_À tem  H¶pw{]Imcaà \nba\w \S¯p¶Xv. AXpsIm­v Xs¶ Ahsc Ft¸mÄ thWsa¦nepw ]ncn¨p hnSmhp¶XmWv. \à coXnbn kÀÆokv sNbvXm 60 hbÊphsc  XpScmw. kÀÆoknepÅ t]mepÅ bmsXmcphn[ B\pIqey§fpw Poh\¡mÀ¡nÃ. amt\PÀ Bb F\n¡nÃ. i¼fw Xcp¶Xv anen«dn kÀÆokn \n¶v AÃ. bqWnÁv sdâv Imâvo³ BWv. kn.Fkv.Un. Imâvo³ AÃ. Fsâ tPmenbpsS Imemh[nbpw 60 hbÊphscbmWv.  H¶mw ]cmXn¡mcs\ Adnbqw. At±lw kvamÀ«v ImÀUv tlmÄUÀ BWv F¶dnbmw. At±lw  HmXssdkv GPâv Bbn«v \nban¨ncn¡p¶Xv c­mw ]cmXn¡mct\bmWv F¶dnbmw. B Imcy§sf¡pdns¨m¶pw F\nbv¡v XÀ¡§fnÃ.   FIvkn.F2 ImWp¶ kntá¨À FsâXmWv. FIvkn.F1 {]Imcw 6500/ cq] tKmkdn¡pw, 6 enIzÀ t_m«nÂkpw hm§n¡m³ km[n¡pw. c­mw ]cmXn¡mcs\ HmXssdkv sN¿m\pÅ ImcWw ]cmXn¡mc\v hmÀ²yIklPamb AkpJw aqeamWv F¶v Adnbmw.  c­mw ]cmXn¡mcsâ HmXssdtkj³ R§Ä AwKoIcn¨XmWv. HmXssdtkj³ AwKoIcn¡p¶Xn\v ap¼v At±l¯n\v shÀ_ Bbn Rm³ hmWnwKv sImSp¯ncp¶p. BbXn\v tcJIsfm¶pw lmPcm¡phm³ km[n¡nÃ. shÀ_ hmWnwKv sImSp¯p F¶v ]dbp¶Xv Ct¸mÄ tIkv BhiymÀ°w Ifhv ]dbpIbmWv F¶v ]dªm icnbÃ. HmXssdkvUv GPâv F¶ \nebv¡v c­mw ]cmXn¡mc³ F.1 ImÀUv D]tbmKn¨p hcp¶Xn F\nbv¡v XÀ¡anÃ. FIvkn.F.1 sâ A[nImc§sfÃmw Xs¶ FIvkv.F.2\pw D]tbmKn¡m³ km[n¡nÃ. km[n¡pw F¶v ]dªm icnbÃ. AXv FIvkn.F.2 tcJ t\m¡nbm ImWm³ km[n¡nà F¶v ]dªm icnbÃ. FIvkn.F.2 {]Imcw sdkv{Sn£³ {]ImcapÅ enantÁj³ c­mw]cmXn¡mc\v D­v. B sdkv{Sn£³ {]Imcta c­mw ]cmXn¡mc\v {]hÀ¯n¡m³ km[n¡qÅp. AhnsS km[\§Ä tÌm¡v hm§n¡p¶Xpw Unkv{Sn_yqj³ \S¯p¶Xpw FÃm D¯chmZn¯§fpw F\nbv¡mWv. C..ImÁtemKv DffXmbn a\Ênem¡nbn«p­v. AXnepÅ \nÀt±i§Ä ]men¡mdp­v. Cu ImÁtemKv {]Imcw IÌtagvknsâ kmÁnkv^m£³ A\pkcn¨v km[\§Ä Unkv{Sn_yqj³ sN¿m³ {ian¡mdp­v. t\m¬.kn.Fkv.Un. sFÁwkv AhnsS ]Àt¨kv sN¿mdnÃ. AXv Unkvt¹ sN¿mdpanÃ. _nÃnwKv sk£\n Hm^otkgvkv ImÁKdn¡\pkcn¨pÅ XcwXncnhpIÄ D­v. It is displayed properly. {]tXyIw  {]tXyIw {]n^d³kkv sImSp¯n«p­v.  H¶mw Iu­dn I½ojâv Hm^otkgvkn\v {]n^d³kv sImSp¯n«p­v. dPnÌdpIÄ {]tXyIw{]tXyIw sabnsâbn³ sN¿p¶p­v. AXp{]Imcw FIvkn.F.2 {]Imcapff BfpIÄ Hcp _p¡n ssk³ sN¿mdp­v. P\d ImÁKdn F¶ \nebnepÅ _p¡nemWv H¸nSp¶Xv. A¯c¯nepÅ hnthN\w sh¨n«pÅXv R§fpsS kuIcymÀ°amWv. AsXÃmw Xs¶ taeptZymKسamcpsS D¯chpw Adnhpw k½Xt¯mSpw IqSnbmWv. AhcpsS A{¸qhtemSpIqSnbmWv. Rm³ FSp¡p¶ Xocpam\§Ä Fsâ taeptZymKسamcpsS A{¸qhtemSp IqSn \S¸m¡mdp­v. BbXn\v {]tXyIn¨v tcJbnÃ. AhnsS hm§p¶ km[\§Ä¡v SmIvkv sImSp¯Xmbn ImWp¶nÃ..kn.Fkv.Un. sFÁwkv am{XambXv sIm­mWv SmIvkv sImSp¡m¯Xv. t\m¬ kn.Fkv.Un. sFÁwkv BsW¦nepw SmIvkv sImSpt¡­n hcptam ? (tNm) (D) R§Ä Uo sN¿m¯XpsIm­v AXn\p¯cw ]dbm³ Rm³ X¿mdÃ. FIvkn.F6 kÀÆokn t\m¡nbm CXn c­nepw SmIvkv sImSp¯Xmbn ImWpw. CXv AhnsS \n¶pw Cjyp sNbvXXmWv. F.F^v.Un. sFÁwkv F¶m  AtzjÀUv t^w Unamâv F¶mWv. taPÀ dm¦n \n¶pw dn«bÀ sNbvX BfpIÄ¡v 10,000/ cq]bpsS t{Kmkdnbpw, 10 enIzÀ t_m«nÂkpw ]Àt¨kv sN¿m³ km[n¡pw. CXn bmsXmcp hn[ sdkv{Sn£³kv CÃ.   sdkv{Sn£³ D­v. CXn  Hmtcmscm sFÁwkpw F{Xhsc ]Àt¨kv sN¿msa¶Xn\v sdkv{Sn£³ D­v.  (k_vPÎv Sp Asshe_nenÁn) A¯c¯n sdkv{Sn£³ shbv¡p¶Xnsâ D¯chmZnXzw F\nbv¡mWv (amt\PÀ¡mWv) It is a part of canteen management AXn\v {]tXyIn¨v dqÄkv H¶pw CÃ. tPmensS `mKambn thsd Imâvo\pw kµÀin¨n«p­v. AhnsSsbms¡ Cu AtzjÀUv Ashbe_nenÁn kvIow DÅXmbn a\Ênem¡nbn«p­v. AXmXv Øe§fnse Imâvo³ amt\Pvsaâv BWv AXv D­m¡p¶Xv. AhcpsS A{]qhtemSp IqSnbmWv B kvIow Cw¹nsaâv sN¿mdpÅXv. AXnsâ tcJ lmPcm¡m³ _p²nap«nÃ. 16/8/2014\v Rm³ eohv Bbncp¶p. Fsâ \nÀt±im\pkcWw am{XamWv Fsâ kt_mÀUnt\Ávkv {]hÀ¯n¡mdv. AXmXv kab§fn Rm³ Xs¶bmWv \nÀt±i§Ä sImSp¡mdv. At¶ XnbXn¡v H.]n.1 ]cmXn¡msc XÃn ]cnt¡Â¸n¨p F¶v tIkv DÅXmbn Adnbmw. A\ymbambn XSªp \nÀ¯n XÃn ]cnt¡Â¸n¨p F¶XmWv tIkv. kw`hw F\nbv¡v t\cn«v AdnbnÃ. Hcp t{]mIvkn tlmÄUÀ h¶v Imâvo\nse FIvkÀÆokv t]gvkWens\ ssIt¿Áw sNbvXp hg¡p­m¡n F¶mWv Adnbmw. Fsâ A\phmZanÃmsX _nÃnwKv sk£\ntebv¡v thsdmcmÄ¡v {]thi\anÃ. At¶ XnbXnbv¡v c­mw ]cmXn¡mc³   AhntSbv¡vIv h¶Xv FIvkn.2sâ _e¯nemWv. Imâvosâ AI¯v Hmtcm sFÁwknsâbSp¯v C{X cq]bv¡v am{Xta ]Àt¨kv sN¿m³ ]mSpÅv F¶v Unkvt¹ sh¨n«nÃ. but general   Bbn«v Hcp Unkvt¹ D­v. 6500/ cq]bpsS apIfn ]cmXn¡mc\v ]Àt¨kv sN¿m³ ]mSnà F¶XmWv sdkv{Sn£³. F{X cq]sS ]Àt¨kv BWv HcmÄ hm§n¨Xv F¶Xv _nÃv sNbvXXn\v tijw am{Xta Adnbm³ km[nbv¡q At¶ Znhkw c­mw ]cmXn¡mc³ ]Àt¨kv sNbvX km[\§Ä _nÃv sNbvXn«nÃ. _nÃnwKv t{]mkÊv \S¶n«nÃ. ssdÁpw {]nhntÃPpw X½nepÅ hyXymkw Adnbpw. tImUv & tIm¬SmÎv D­v. It is a part of standard of procedure  At¶ Znhkw c­mw ]cmXn¡mc³ Imâvo\I¯v IbdnbXn \nbam\pkrXaÃ. Entry was by wrongful means At±l¯nsâ t]cv JCo’s cPnÌdnepw FgpXn t^m¬ \¼À sXÁmbn cPnÌÀ sNbvXp. AhÀ P\d ImÁKdnbnemWv FgptX­Xv. H¶mw ]cmXn¡mc³ sP.kn.H. ImÁKdnbnemWv hcp¶p. (t^mÀ Imâvo³ ]À¸kv Hm¬en) km[mcW shcnss^ sNbvXXn\v tijw am{Xta BfpIsf AXn\It¯bv¡v s]ÀanÁv sN¿mdpÅp. Nne kab§fn djv DÅt¸mÄ shcnss^ sN¿mdnÃ. At¶ Znhkkvw c­mw ]cmXn¡msc shcnss^ sNbvtXm¶v F\n¡v t\cn«v AdnbnÃ. \nbam\pkrXambn _nÃnwKv sk£³ hsc ChÀ¡v {]thin¡p¶Xn\v bmsXmcphn[ sdkv{Sn£\pw CÃ. At±l¯nsâ jÀ«n ]nSn¨v t]m¡Án \n¶pw kvamÀ«v ImÀUv ]nSn¨v hm§nbXv Fsâ \nÀt±i{]ImcaÃ. ImÀUv ]nSn¨v hm§nbn«nÃ.  (witness adds)  t]m¡Án \n¶pw ]nSn¨p]dn¨p F¶p ]dbp¶ kw`hw D­mtbm F¶v F\n¡dnbnÃ. kd­À sNbvXp X¶XÃ. At±lw ImÀUv Iu­dn C«n«p t]mbXmWv. Cu tIkv Xocp¶Xv hsc Cu ImÀUv Xcm³ km[n¡nà F¶v ]dªv seÁÀ Ab¨n«nÃ. H¶mw ]cmXn¡mcsâ AtX ÌmÁkv Aà c­mw ]cmXn¡mc\v. FIvkn.F.2 {]Imcw AtX cPnÌÀ At±l¯n\nÃ.  He is a proxy buyer 16/8/2014\pÅ C³knUâv D­mbXv Fsâbpw H.]n.1sâbpw AdnthmsSbpw, \nÀt±it¯msSbpw BWv F¶v ]dªm icnbÃ. Rm³ Øe¯nÃm¯XpsIm­mWv Rm³ _m[yØ\à F¶v ]dbp¶Xv  ]dªm F\n¡dnbnÃ.

Re-examination

H¶mw ]cmXn¡mc³ Ct¸mgpw Imâvo\n h¶v km[\§Ä hm§mdp­v

Further cross with permission

ImÀUv Xncn¨psImSp¡msX tImSXn D¯chv {]ImcamWv Xncn¨v sImSp¯Xv. AXv hm§n¨v t]mhm³ R§Ä seÁÀ Ab¨ncp¶p.

From the above depositions it is quite clear that both the complainants have committed defaults.

Further the second complainant is seen to have purchased goods, provisions groceries etc. exceeding the limits fixed for him as per the standard operating procedure and assured availability scheme existing in the Palakkad military canteen. The second complainant is not a prime card holder and he cannot claim all the benefits of military canteen allowed to first complainant who is a prime card holder and which is also  clear from the above DW2 deposition. Further the second complainant has not produced any concrete evidence to prove that discrimination was shown to him by not billing items taken by him from the canteen, although the opposite parties 1 & 2 are said to have billed the same number of items taken from the canteen  by a person standing one step ahead of the second complainant. Further the second complainant has not written or reported this discrimination shown to him by first and second opposite parties on 16/8/14 to canteen management authorities, Chennai. The complainants have not taken any steps to examine  some eye witnesses to the unfortunate incident that had happened in the Palakkad military canteen on 16/8/14 in order to  bring out this discrimination allegedly shown by opposite parties 1 & 2 to the second complainant.  

 Thus we find that there has occurred deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2. At the same time we also see some defaults have occurred on the side of complainants also. We also view that the opposite parties 3,4 & 5, although they did not file their versions nor they appeared before this Forum  are   vicariously liable for the acts and deeds alleged to have been committed by  opposite parties 1 & 2 towards the complainants.

Hence we decide to partly allow the complaint.

We order the opposite parties   1 to 5 jointly and severally to pay to the complainants       Rs.1 lakhs (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation  for   deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by opposite parties 1 & 2 to them; we also direct the opposite parties 1 & 2  jointly and severally to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainants towards compensation  for mental agony  and financial loss suffered by them, which are caused by the acts of opposite parties 1 & 2. Also we direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to  pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards to the complainants towards  cost of this proceedings incurred by them.   

This order shall be executed within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainants are also entitled to receive interest @9% per annum on the total amount due to the complainants from the date of this order till realization.

   Pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th  day of February     2021.

                                                                                                                 Sd/-

   V.P.Anantha Narayanan           

                                                 Member (President I/c)

                                                          Sd/-

                    Vidya.A

                    Member  

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 is a Photostat copy of the canteen smart card  belonging to the complainant.

Ext.A2 is Photostat copy of authorization card which proves that first complainant has given authorization to second complainant, his son, Mr.Ajithkumar MR as his authorized dependent

Ext.A3 is a copy  of lawyer notice issued by the complainant to the first opposite party’s counsel Ext.A4  is copy of the lawyer notice issued by complainant’s counsel to the 2^nd OP

Ext.A5(1) is reply sent by 1^st opposite party through his lawyer (Mr.V.Krishnadas) to complainants counsel.

Ext.A5(2) is reply sent by 2^nd opposite party in person to the complainants counsel.

Ext.A6 series show bills issued  to the complainants  on various dates for the purchase of goods, groceries, liquor etc. 

ExtA7 series show bills issued to the complainants on various dates for the purchase of goods, groceries,  daily consumables,  liquor etc.

Ext.A8 series show bills issued to the complainants on various dates for the purchase of goods, groceries, daily consumables,  liquor etc.

Ext.A9 series show bills issued to the complainant on various dates for the purchase of goods, groceries, daily consumables etc. from general shops and from military canteen. 

Ext.A10 series are bills showing purchase of various items.

Ext.A11 is a taxi receipt dated 16/8/14 issued by Mr.Ratheesh (driver of the taxi) to the complainant.

Ext.A12 are acknowledgement card and postal receipt  issued by 2^nd complainant’s advocate (original)

Ext.A13 is postal cover of the letter sent by 2^nd opposite party to 2^nd complainant’s advocate (original) which shows receipt of the above letter.

Ext.A14 is incident reporting letter sent by the 2^nd opposite party (original) which shows description of the incident.

Ext.A15 is postal cover of the letter issued by 2^nd opposite party to the complainant’s advocate.

Ext.A16 is photocopy of letter issued by 1^st complainant to Colonel, MCO Coimbatore.

Ext.A17 is original letter issued by 2nd opposite party to 1^st complainant stating that for canteen smart card activation first complainant is advised to report in person to GPC Palakkad.

Ext.A18 – is letter issued by first complainant to 2^nd opposite party  for original acknowledgment card and postal receipt. 

Ext.A19 is a  circular / notice showing the pricing of Indian made foreign liquor and beer by KSBC.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 which is marked with objection shows recommendations of the officiating officer, Coimbatore and findings of the board.

Ext.B2 is FIR  of crime No.1269/2014 of Town South Police station (certified copy).

Ext.B3 is incident reporting letter (certified copy) which shows description of the incident happened in the military canteen Palakkad on 16/8/14.

Ext.B4 is certified copy of seizure mahasar which shows description of the incident.

Ext.B5  is certified copy of scene mahasar which shows a brief description of what happened in the military canteen at Palakkad on  16/8/14. 

Ext.B6 is a certified copy of memorandum of evidence in crime No.1269/2014.

Ext.B7 is a final report  of Kerala Police in Form No.5 which shows FIR No., date, Act as IPC, sections; name and address of the investigation officers, name of complainant,  particulars of accused person, charges under sections 448, 294(b), 506(1) IPC of South Police station crime No. as 1269/14 submitted by SI of police South Police station Palakkad dated 20/9/14 addressed to hon’ble judicial first class magistrate court No.III Palakkad.

Ext.B8 is marked subject to proof. It is a certified copy of the 161 statement of Sivadasan, Kesavadasan and Vasudevan.

Ext.B9 is incident reporting letter issued by 2^nd opposite party to the canteen cell, QMG branch Chennai (marked subject to proof).

Ext.B10 are recommendations of officiating station commander, Coimbatore on the court of enquiry proceedings, investigating into the circumstances under which the incident of misbehavior by a customer  inside the golden palm canteen on 16/8/14 (marked subject to proof).

Ext.B11 – News letter issue of September 2012 which shows  introduction of Assured Availability Scheme, this letter issued by Golden Palm Canteen Palakkad (marked subject to proof)

Ext.B12 – News letter issued by 2^nd opposite party  to the District Sainik Welfare Officer Palakkad (Marked subject to proof).

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

PW1 –M.R. Ajithkumar

PW2 – Sadanandan V.P.

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

DW1 – Sivadasan

DW2 – Major Kesavadasan

Cost – Rs.5,000/- allowed as cost.