D.o.F:23/6/2011

D.o.O:30/11/11

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.162/11

                        Dated this, the 30th    day of November 2011.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                     : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                               : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G.                                      : MEMBER 

M.R.Dineshan, Udaya Nivas,

Pathirakunnu, Ajanoor,Po.                              :  Complainant

Anandashram. Via.

(in person)

1.Taluk Supply Officer, Hosdurg

2.Rationing  Officer, Murali,

  Taluk Supply Office, Hosdurg

 3.Saju , Rationing  Officer, Kanhangad.         : Opposite parties

 Taluk Supply Office, Hosdurg

4.N.Gopi, Ration Shop No. 120,

Kottacherry, Kanhangad.

( in person)

                                                                                ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ       : PRESIDENT

         Shorn of all unnecessaries the case of complainant Sri.M.R.Dineshan is that the opposite parties did not include  his name in the list of beneficiaries eligible for the rice at the reduced rate of `2/- per  kilogram.  According to him the list of beneficiaries  from the District Lottery office is sent to Ist opposite party on 23/12/2010 which was received by them on 27/12/2010 and he submitted his application on 19/12/2010 itself to 4<sup>th</sup> opposite party.  But till 17/2/2011 he did not  receive the rice in the subsidized  rate.  On enquiry it was told that it will be allotted him soon.  But he was included in the list only in May 2011.  Hence the complaint for the refund of the price of the rice which  he paid  during the month of January 2011 to March 2011 ie `108/- with the necessary expenses he incurred  amounts to `264/-.

2.  According to Ist opposite party , the complainant was not a beneficiary as per the initial list and the category of beneficiaries were further enlarged by the govt. as per order CS-A3 6868/10 dtd 10/1/11 and the complainant  being a  lottery agent included in the list only as per the above order.  But the Election Commission restrained the govt. from widening the list of beneficiaries .  But in the meanwhile the complainant had taken back his  affidavit and related documents  submitted  before 4^th opposite party.  Had he not been  taken back the said documents  then he would have benefitted and included in the list of beneficiaries much earlier.

3.  According to opposite parties  2&3, the complainant taken back his affidavit  and documents submitted. Instead of resubmitting the same when the  lottery  agents were included in the beneficiary  list, the complainant did not re submit it but he filed copy of affidavit stating that the original affidavit is  submitted to RI on 25/3/2011.   There is no priority  list   for   selecting the eligible people  who are  entitled for  subsidized rate. The list of  those persons who are eligible for the rice are received from the lottery welfare office,during the period  25/2/2011 to 18/4/11 and there was  prohibition of the Election Commission  to distribute the rice  in subsidized rate.  Therefore  rice is not distributed  in subsidized rate.  After the removal of prohibition the complainant is given rice at subsidized rate.

4.  According to 4^th opposite party, the  authorized  Retail Dealer of Kottacherry the complainant  submitted his application on 19/12/10   on the ground that he is a member of lottery welfare fund.  When 4^th opposite party approached with the  application to T.S. office, he was informed that the  member of lottery welfare fund are not included in the beneficiary list and  therefore he returned with the said application.   Thereafter when the  complainant came to the  ration shop , he taken back his original  affidavit.  Subsequently he submitted the  Photostat copy of the  said affidavit and ration card in the last week of February stating that the original  of the same is submitted in the office of Ist opposite party.  Later when 4^th opposite party approached the office of Ist opposite party  it was told that  due to the prohibition  of  Election Commission no new beneficiaries can be included in the list and  on 25^th April when he approached  the office of  Ist opposite party, the complainant also included in the list and thereafter  he became one of the  beneficiary of the said scheme.

5.   After submitting the version both sides submitted their affidavit and produced documents in support of their cases.  Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of complainant.  Exts.B1 to B5 marked on the side of opposite parties.  Both sides heard.  Documents perused.

6.   In the affidavit the complainant submitted that on 23/2/11 , 2^nd opposite party refused to  sanction his application raising the defense of prohibition by the Election Commission though Election Commission restrained only the APL group from receiving the subsidized rice.  Again on 19/3/11 he approached Ist opposite party and submitted his application and obtain  the sanction and has not kept the original affidavit with  him but submitted before 2^nd opposite party.  According to  him  no receipts are issuing  from the office of Ist opposite party when an application is submitted.  According to  complainant one  Sivakumar who comes under the category of the complainant also find the  same fate and he filed his fresh application under general category to get the rice under the subsidized rate.  The further case of complainant is that the staff of  the Ist opposite party behaving him in inimical manner.  

7.   We carefully perused all the documents submitted by  both sides.

    Complainant in his affidavit has submitted that one Sivakumar also did not get the rice under the subsidized rate who  comes under the category of the complainant has again submitted fresh  application under general category to get the subsidized rice.  This would goes to show that  none of the opposite parties did take any steps to deny rice to complainant alone.  Further by  denying  the rice under the subsidized  rate none of the opposite parties would receive any benefit and  the  complainant has no case that  any consideration is received by any of the opposite parties for including his name in the list of beneficiaries for the subsidised rice.

8.   But with regard to the allegation of the complainant  that no receipts are being issued to any of the applications/complaints submitted before opposite parties, we find some substance.  It is a fact that in most of the public offices there is no practice of issuing receipts for the applications/complaints received by them.  This would restricts the public to pursue their matter in future.  It is also a fact that the public servants who is duty bound to serve the public often behaves like their masters .  It is to be borne in mind that in India the sovereignty of our country  vests with the people and even their elected representatives shall be subservient  to them, so also the law making  and executing bodies.

   Therefore we direct the opposite parties to issue receipts  of acknowledgment in future to the application/complaints received by them from the public.  However in the complaint regarding the delay in supply of subsidized rice to the complainant, we did not find any merit.  Therefore the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Exts:

A1- copy of request of  complainant

A2-copy of witness statement

A3- copy of identity card

A4-3/8/11-copy of letter issued by Ist OP to complainant

A5-7/4/11  copy of letter issued by OP.1  to complainant

A6- APL list

A7-12/1/2010- copy of letter issued by Dist.Lottery Welfare Office to Ist  OP

A8-27/1/11- do-

A9-30/3/11- do-

A10-copy of eligible APL list issued by DLW Officer to Ist OP

B1- copy of Circular

B2-copy of revised eligible APL list

B3- copy of stay order of APL list

B4-Copy of application issued by PW1.

B5-copy of Govt.order

MEMBER                               MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

eva