BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

And

Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Monday the 14^th day of March, 2011

C.C.No 110/10

Between:

Smt. Sangati Jyothi, W/o. Late Sangati Pullaiah,

 Vaddugandla village, Panyam Mandal, Presently residing at H.No.1/20, C/o. Daveedu, Kadamakalva village, Bandi Atmakur mandal, Kurnool District-518 512.                          

   .…Complainant 

                                    -Vs-

1. Thasiladar, Mandal Revenue Office,

    Panyam, Kurnool District-518 112.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,O/o. Officer of the R.D.O.

    Nandyal, Kurnool District-518 501.

3. The District Collector,

Collector complex,Kurnool-518 002.                                       

…Opposite Parties

        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri. Smt. D.S.Saileela, Government Pleader for opposite parties 1 to 3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

   ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

     C.C. No. 110/10

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-

1. To direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay the claim amount Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of death of the deceased i.e.            13-05-2008 till the date of realization with benefits.

1. To grant a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony;

1. To grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint;

And

(d)    To grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-  The complainant  is the husband of the Late S.Pullaiah who worked as a Contract Electric Labour.  On 13-05-2008 complainant’s husband S.Pullaiah died due to Electric Shock.  Mahanandi police registered a case in Crime No.47/2008 Under Section 337, 304A I.P.C.  The complainant submitted an application to grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- under Apathbandhu Scheme.  Even after one year the opposite parties not sanctioned the amount to the complainant.  Opposite party No.1 misplaced the record of the complainant and not forwarded to opposite party No.2 in time.  After lapse of one year opposite party No.1 forwarded the file to opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.2 rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that it was received after lapse of one year from the date of the accident.  The complainant approached opposite party No.3 and submitted representation so far no steps were taken for payment of the amount to the complainant due to the negligence of opposite party No.1.  The claim was not sanctioned by the Government.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written versions separately. Opposite party No.3 adopted the written version filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2.  It is stated in the written version of the opposite party No.1 that the complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant’s husband died on 13-05-2008 due to Electric Shock.  The complainant applied for sanction of Financial Assistance under Apathbandhu Scheme on                 03-06-2008.  The then Tahsildar had prepared proposal and submitted the same to opposite party No.2 in L.Dis. No.187/2008 dated 24-06-2008. The said proposal was sent to opposite party No.2 through the father of the complainant.  The complainant is not a consumer.  The complainant is not maintainable.  Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

      Opposite party No.2 filed writer version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  The husband of the complainant died on 13-05-2008 due to Electric Shock.  Opposite party No.1submitted the proposal to opposite party No.2 on 25-05-2009.  The opposite party No.2 submitted the said proposal to the district collector on 02-06-2009 within the period of one week.  There is no delay on the part of opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.3 submitted report to the Commissioner, Hyderabad on 19-09-2009 for sanction of exgratia.  It is not mandatory to pay amount under Apathbandhu Scheme.  The opposite parties cannot pay the amount with out proper sanction from the Government.

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1and A2 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and sworn affidavits of the opposite party No.1 and 2 are filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are:

(a)        Whether the complainant is a consumer under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

(c)                To what relief?

7. POINT No.1:- Admittedly S.Pullaiah husband of the complainant died on 13-05-2008 due to electric shock.  Mahanandi police registered a case in Crime No.47/2008 under section 337, 304A I.P.C.  Admittedly the complainant who is the wife of the deceased gave an application to opposite party No.1 for sanction of Financial Assistance under Apathbandhu Scheme.  It is admitted by opposite party No.1 in its written version that the complainant applied for Financial Assistance under Apathbandhu Scheme on 03-06-2008.  As no Financial Assistance is granted to the complainant under the said scheme she filed the present complaint against the opposite parties.  It is the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a Consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and that the present complaint is not maintainable.  As per section 2 (i) d of the Act, Consumer is a person who buys goods for a consideration or who hires or avails of any services for a consideration.  Admittedly the opposite parties are representatives of Government.  It is not the case of the complainant that she paid consideration to avail the services of the opposite parties.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant in support of his contention that the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora extends to cases of services rendered by statutory or public authorities relied on a decision reported in I (2010) CPJ 269.  That is a case where the complainant purchased Air Ticket from the opposite parties.  In the present case on hand admittedly the complainant did not pay any consideration to avail the services of the opposite parties undoubtedly the complaint against the statutory and public authorities is maintainable in Consumer Fora provided the complainant  is a Consumer within the meaning of section 2 (i) d of the Act.  In the present case on hand the complaint has not paid any consideration to the opposite parties to avail their services.  The complainant in not a Consumer and the present case against the opposite parties is not maintainable.

8.     Point No.2:-      The present complainant is filed against opposite parties claiming an amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest under Apathbandhu Scheme.  It is the contention of the complainant that after death of her husband she gave an application to opposite party No.1 to grant Financial Assistance under Apathbandhu Scheme.  Opposite party No.1 in his written version admitted that the complainant applied for Financial Assistance under Apathbandhu Scheme on 03-06-2008 and that the then Tahsildar submitted proposal to Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal on 24-06-2008.  No document is filed by opposite parties to show that the then Tahsildar submitted the proposal to opposite party No.2 in the year 2008.  According to the complainant her application was not forwarded by opposite party No.1 to opposite No.2 in time and that opposite party No.1 negligently kept her application with out forwarding it to opposite party No.2 within time.  As seen from the Ex.A1 it is very clear that the opposite party No.1 submitted the proposal of the complainant to opposite party No.2 on 02-06-2009.  There was abnormal delay in submitting the application of the complainant to opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.2 says that the proposal of the complainant was sent to the district Collector on 02-06-2009.  The District Collector recommended all the lapsed cases and submitted to the Commissioner for Disaster Management, Hyderabad on 19-09-2009.  Ex.B1 to B3 go to show that the application of the complainant for sanction of the Financial Assistance under Apathbandhu Scheme is now pending with the Government.  Merely because there was some delay in granting the Financial Assistance, the complainant is not entitled to the relief under Consumer Protection Act.  With out sanction from the Government the opposite parties are not in a position to pay exgratia to the complainant.  As already stated the complainant is not a Consumer.  The disputes between complainant and the opposite parties is not Consumer Disputes.  The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

9.     In result, the complaint is dismissed.  In the circumstances of the case without cost.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 14^th day of March, 2011.

Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                 Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                    PRESIDENT                 LADY MEMBER

      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant: Nil                    For the opposite parties: Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Photo copy of check slip of OP1 containing income certificate, affidavit, inquest report, FIR, complainant letter, statement of witness, R-1 report, report of Thasildar, Panyam.

Ex.A2        Photo copy of representation of Complainant to the District Collector, Kurnool.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- 

Ex.B1        Photo copy of letter dated 24-06-2010 to Mandal Tahasildar, Panyam.

Ex.B2        Photo copy of letter dated 05-02-2010 of District Collector, Kurnool to Commissioner for Disaster Management &

Ex-Officio, Principal Secretary to Government, Hyderabad.

Ex.B3        Photo copy of letter dated 27-04-2010 of District Collector, Kurnool to Commissioner for Disaster Management &

Ex-Officio, Principal Secretary to Government, Hyderabad.

          Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                  Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                     PRESIDENT                 LADY MEMBER

   // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on :

Copy was dispatched on   :