Karnataka

Bidar

CC/71/2015

Madhukar S/o Late Vithalrao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst. Director of Agriculture of Aurad (B) - Opp.Party(s)

Mulchand H.G.Adv.

31 May 2016

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                       C.C.No. 71/2015

 

                                                                                        Date of filing : 10/09/2015

 

                                                                                   Date of disposal : 31/05/2016

 

 

P R E S E N T:-                 (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                         (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                  Member.

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT:-            Madhukar, s/o Late Vithalrao,                                                         

                                         Age: major,  Occ:Agriculture,

                                      R/o Village Ganeshpur (A), Tq.Aurad (B),

                                         Dist.Bidar.

 

 

                                      (By Shri. Mulchand H.G., Advocate)

 

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

 

OPPONENT/S   :-            The  Assistant  Director of Agriculture

                                      of Aurad (B), Tq.Aurad (B),Dst.Bidar.

 

 

                                      ( By Shri. S.B. Keskar,  Advocate)

 

                                     

                                            ::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

 

             The present complaint is filed u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act. 1986 against the O.P. alleging deficiency of service, consequent upon the denial of the compensation designed to be paid as “HAVU KADITHA PARIHARA DHANA” under the management of department of Agriculture, Govt. Of Karnataka.  The gist of the complaint is as follows:-

 

 

2.              The, the complainant’s father late vithal Rao, an agriculturist was owner of land to the extent of Acre 17.10 guntas in village Ganeshpur(A), Tq.Aurad,Dist.Bidar.  Said late Vithal Rao while working in his land on 27-01-2013, was bitten by snake and died about 11.a.m. of the same day.  The complainant being the only son took up performing the funeral rites and due to ignorance could not immediately intimate the fact of the to the O.P.  No. F.I.R. was filed by him, no post-mortem was conducted on the corpse.

 

3.             Later, the complainant brought the fact to the notice of the O.P. and since the designed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was denied to him, the present complaint has been filed seeking compensation.  Copies of documents, such as death certificate, a panchanama supposed to be drawn by the president , G.P., Ekamba, representation to the O.P. dt. 03-06-2015 and letter of the O.P. dt. 24-07-2014 calling upon production of documents, & R.T.C. extract have been filed with the complaint.  At a later stage evidence affidavit and written arguments were filed by the complainant.  He has also filed Judgement of earlier two cases disposed off by this Forum, which are not relevant to the present case in hand, the formers being against different entities.

4.              On receipt of notice, the O.P. has put up appearance through counsel and has filed objection statement contending that, the complainant has failed to submit the F.I.R. and post-mortem report of the deceased as provided for in the rules and procedures to administer the scheme and hence the denial of compensation was justified.

5.              Before delving deep into the matter, we would like to mention here that, abinitio, the complainant was called upon by this Forum to justify the maintainability of the case, which was filed against the sole O.P., a state Govt. Official.  It was made clear to the counsel appearing for the complainant that, prima facie, he must establish himself as a Consumer or L.R. of a Consumer as provided for u/s. 2 (1)(d) of the C.P. Act 1986, which reads as follows:-

(d) “consumer”means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system or deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) ( hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ( hires or avails of ) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the firs-mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose)

           (explanation: For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose “does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment:)

 

6.              Despite the persistent suggestions of the Court, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has not produced a scrap of paper, justifying any full/part payment(s) made to the O.P. either by the deceased or himself to be considered as a consumer, so as to maintain the present case before this Forum.  Rather, he has chosen to adopt jugglery of words to misguide, mislead this Court, albeit he was warned several times about the same.

7.               Resultantly, we have no option but to hold that, the present case is not maintainable in the instant form and proceed to pass the following:     

 

 

 

 

: :   ORDER : :

 

               

1.   The  complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.

 

2.    The complainant, if so advised is at liberty to move the

Hon’ble High Court seeking a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or any other Court of competent jurisdiction to assail him claim.  He also may appeal the  State of Karnataka to consider his case on compassionate grounds, if so advised

 

 

3.   There would be no order as to compensation, cost or litigation

Expenses under the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

4.    Before parting, it is expressed that, we would be too happy, if

the O.P., a state instrumentality would consider the genuine claim of lthe complainant favourably, basing on the legal maxium “ignorantia facti excusat”at it’s end.

 

 

             Office to provide free copies to both sides.

 

 

 

   ( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 31^st day of April-2015 )

 

 

                        Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                               Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                

           Member                                                                         President