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
Monday the 18th day of October , 2010
C.C.No 61/10
Between:
P.Sidda Reddy, S/o. P.Aswartha Reddy,
D.No.1-20, Retired Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, R/o Srinagaram Village, Mahanandi Post, Mahanandi Mandalam, Kurnool District.
…..…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Deputy Commissioner and Executive Officer, Sree Mahandeeswara Swami Devasthanam,
Mahanandi Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.
2. The Commissioner of Endowments, Endowment Department,
D.No.4-1-1107,Boggulakunta, Tilak Road,Hyderabad.
….…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy , Advocate, for complainant, and Sri. A.V.Subramanaym, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Smt. D.S.Saileela , Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 61/10
- This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs
- to pay the sanctioned medical reimbursement amount of
Rs.1,57,500/- together with interest @ 18% p.a from the
date of sanction i.,e 16-07-2009 till its payment.
- to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages.
- to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint
and
- to do such other and further reliefs this Hon’ble Forum
deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
- The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant worked and retd., as Asst., Commissioner in Endowment Department. He retd., from the service on attaining the age of superannuation . The complainant is entitled for the reimbursement of the medical bills incurred for him and his wife. The complainant got his wife treated of her ailment in Apollo Hospital , Jubli Hills, Hyderabad during the period from 09-02-2009 to 18-02-2009 by incurring expenditure of Rs.1,75,000/-. After the discharge from the hospital the complainant submitted an application to OP.No.2 on 13-03-2009 claiming reimbursement of the medical bills. OP.No.2 passed sanctioned orders dated 16-07-2009 sanctioning Rs.1,57,500/- towards reimbursement of the medical bills and directed the OP .No.1 to draw and disburse the same to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant made several representations to OP.No.1 requesting to implement the orders of OP.No.2. There was no response from OP.No.1. The complainant gave written representations on 31-07-2009. He also got issued legal notice dated 24-08-2009 to OP.No.1. OP.No.1 having received the legal notice got issued reply notice dated 09-09-2009. OP.No.1 is excepted to render service to the complainant. Non implementing the orders of OP.No.2 by OP.No.1 amounts to deficiency of service .The inaction of the OP.No.1 caused mental agony to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to damages of Rs.1,00,000/-. OP.No.1 intentionally delayed the disbursement of the amount inspite of clear orders of OP.No.2 .Hence the complaint.
3. OP.No.1 filed written version and the same is adopted by OP.No.2. It is stated in the written version of OP.No.1 that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that OP.No.2 was pleased to sanction a sum of Rs.1,57,500/- to the complainant towards medical reimbursement. The wife of the complainant has taken land of the temple on lease for a period of 3 years commencing from 24-05-2004 to 31-05-2007. She became due lease amount of Rs.1,09,375/- . OP.No.1 filed a suit O.S No.252/08 on the file of Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Nandyal for the recovery of arrears of lease amount due by the wife of the complainant. The said suit filed by the temple against the wife of the complainant is still pending. There is no intentional delay in disbursement of sanctioned amount to the complainant. The complainant instead of clearing the arrears of lease amount from his wife , is claiming the amount sanctioned towards the medical treatment of his wife. The sanctioned amount was not disbursed in the interest of temple only. The complainant made a representation on 24-08-2009 to the Hon’ble A.P. State Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad for the same relief. The present complaint is filed subsequently for the same relief. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable. This forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B6 are marked and sworn affidavit of OP.No.1 is filed.
5. Heard both sides. OP.No.1 also filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs ?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
(iii) To what relief?
7. Points No.1 & 2 : Admittedly the complainant worked as a Asst., Commissioner in Endowment Department and he retd., from service on attaining age of superannuation. It is the case of the complainant that his wife took treatment for heart ailment in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, that on the application of the complainant the OP.No.2 sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,57,500/- towards medical reimbursement . The complainant filed Ex.A1 copy of the order of the OP.No.1 dated 16-07-2009. As seen from Ex.A1 it is very clear that OP.No.2 sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,57,500/- to the complainant towards medical reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the complainant for his wife. As the OP.No.1 did not draw and pay the said amount the complainant filed the present complaint.
8. It is the case of the complainant that inspite of the orders of OP.No.2 dated 16-07-2009 OP.No.1 did not take steps to draw and pay the amount to him and that there was deficiency of service on the part of OP.No.1. After passing of the orders by OP.No.2 the complainant made a representation to OP.No.1 with a request to draw and pay the amount Rs.1,57,500/-. Ex.A2 and A3 are the copies of the written representation made by the complainant to OP.No.1. The complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 24-08-2009 demanding OP.No.1 to draw and pay the amount sanctioned by OP.No.2. OP.No.1 instead of paying the amount to the complainant got issued a reply notice Ex.A5 dated 09-09-2009 stating that a suit in O.S No.252/08 was filed on the file of Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Nandyal against the wife of the complainant for the recovery of the arrears of lease amount and that he sought directions from the commissioner of Endowment. Admittedly the suit O.S No. 252/08 filed by the temple against wife of the complainant is still pending. Admittedly there is no attachment of the amount payable to the complainant as per the orders of OP.No.2. The amount payable to the complainant as per the orders of the OP.No.2 is nothing to do with the suit filed by the temple invoice No. 252/08 on the file of Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Nandyal against the wife of the complainant for the recovery of the arrears of the lease amount. OP.No.1 inspite of the orders of the OP.No.2 did not choose to draw and pay the amount incurred by the complainant for medical treatment of his wife. Even after the legal notice issued by the complainant OP.No.1 did not choose to pay the amount to the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.1 in not paying the amount to the complainant as per the orders of OP.No.2 dated 16-07-2009.
9. Admittedly prior to the filling of the present complaint the complainant filed a petition before the Human Rights Commission on 24-08-2009. Ex.B3 is the copy of the said petition. The Human Rights Commission passed orders on 05-06-2010. Ex.B5 is the copy of the orders of the State Human Rights Commission. In the said order OP.No.1 is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,57,500/- to the credit of the said suit O.S No. 252/08 on the file of Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Nandyal. It is further ordered by the Human Right Commission that the afore said amount shall be refunded to the wife of the complainant who is the defendant in O.S No.252/08 in the event of the said suit failing against her. In view of the said order of the Hon’ble Human Right Commission , A.P, we think it is not desirable to pass another order making the issue complicated. Admittedly OP.No.1 deposited the said amount of Rs.1,57,500/- in O.S.252/08 on the file of Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Nandyal.
10. The complainant claims damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony . Admittedly the OP.No.2 passed sanction orders on 16-07-2009 OP.No.1 was direct to draw and pay the amount to the complainant. OP.No.1 inspite of the representations made by the complainant did not choose to draw and pay the said amount to the complainant. OP.No.1 deposited the said amount thorough a bankers cheque dated
24-06-2010 as per the orders passed by the Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad. Admittedly the complainant is a retd., employee in Endowment Department. OP.No.1 made the complainant to approach Human Rights Commission and this forum by not paying the sanctioned amount to the complainant . The complainant must have suffered mental agony. OP.No.1 wantonly did not choose to pay the amount to the complainant immediately after he received the sanction order of OP.No.2. . We think that ends of justice can be met by granting of damages of Rs.5,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant .
11. Point No.4: In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the OP.No. 1 to pay damages of Rs.5,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant along with costs of Rs.500/ . The payment of Rs.1,57,500/- is subject to the result of the suit invoice 252/08 on the file of Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Nandyal as ordered by the A.P. Human Right Commission, Hyderabad. The complaint against OP.No.2 is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 18th day of October, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Sanction orders
dt. 16-7-09 passed by the commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of Written representation dated 31-7-2009.
Ex.A3. Photo copy of written representation dated 17-8-2009
Ex.A4. Office copy of legal notice dated 24-8-2009 issued to OP’s
Ex.A5. Reply notice dated 9-9-2009 issued by the first opposite party.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Attested copy of plaint copy in O.S. No.252/2008
Ex.B2. Attested copy of written statement in O.S. No.252/2008.
Ex.B3. Attested copy of petition dated 24-8-2009 to the Chairman, A.P. State Human Rights Commission, filed by the complainant.
Ex.B4. Attested copy of Detailed Report of the Opposite Party in Rc.No.A4/567/2009 dt.11-8-2009 to the 2nd opposite party commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad.
Ex.B5. Photo copy of Orders made in HR. Case No.6205/2009, dated 5-6-2010 on the file of AP State Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad.
Ex.B6. Photo copy of letter date4d 26-6-2010 by OP NO.1 to the Hon’ble Principal Sr.Civil Judge, Nandyal along with demand drafts.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// 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 :
