BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member, PRESIDENT (FAC)
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Tuesday the 15th day of January, 2013
C.C.No.07/2012
Between:
Devisetty Mallikarjuna Setty,
S/o D.Venkata Ramaiah,
Resident of H.No.38/142, Minchin Street,
Kurnool – 518 001. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Executive Officer,
Sri.Bramarambha Mallikarjuna Devasthanam,
Srisailam – 518 101.
2. The Commissioner,
Endowment Department,
Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Tilak Road,
Hyderabad – 500 001. ...Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri A.V.Subranamyam, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 called absent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt.S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)
C.C. No.07/2012
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
(a) To direct the opposite party No.1 to continue the Nithya Kalyana Pathakam in favour of the complainant;
(b) To direct the opposite party No.1 said scheme may not be stopped in the case of the complainant as he entered into the scheme as early as on 20-03-2006;
(c) To direct the opposite party No.1 not to apply the circular orders of opposite party No.1 to the complainant:
(d) To grant the cost of the complaint;
And
(e) To grant any other relief as the Honourable 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 resident of Kurnool. He is a devotee of Lord Shiva. There was a procedure laid down at Sri Bhramarambha Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam for conducting the Marriage of Lord Shiva every year on the selected date of devotee in the name of devotee for his life long, the devotee shall pay Rs.10,000/- in lump sum. Accordingly the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- with opposite party No.1 under “NITHYA KALYANA PATHAKAM” under receipt No.31903 dated 20-03-2006. The scheme has come into force from the date of deposit and every year on 18th February Kalayanam was being performed. On 04-02-2011 under Rc.No.G4/420/2011 the opposite party No.1 informed to the complainant referring the circular of Dharmikaparishad of Hindu religious and endowment and Charitable Trust, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, where in it is mentioned that the period of permanent services of the God Lord Shiva and Ammavaru was restricted to 10 years only and granted 3 years grace period till the year 2013 for the devotees whose period was already completed 10 years by the year 2010, it will be stopped after 2013. The said circular order shall not be applicable to the complainant. He had already paid the amounts for that particular item of service long back. There is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The orders of the opposite parties caused lot of mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act. The complainant does not comes under the purview of consumer disputes under section 2 (1) (e) of the Act. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. All the transactions made, services rendered in Hindu religious institution are within the purview of Endowment Act 30 of 1987. It is admitted that several devotees deposited Rs.10,000/- towards sasvatha Kalyanam Pooja to Sri Bhramarambha and Mallikarjuna Swamy, Srisailam. It is also admitted that on 04-02-2011 under Rc.No.G4/42-/2011 opposite party No.1 informed to all the devotees referring the circular No.24 Rc.No.DP1/52200/2009 dated 10-11-2010, issued by opposite party No.2 where in the period of permanent services was restricted to 10 years only and the grace period 3 years was granted to devotees whose period was already completed 10 years by the year 2010 and the said services will be stopped after 2013. Opposite party No.1 temple is under the control of Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. It has to follow the rules and regulations specified by the A.P. Charitable Trust and Hindu religious Act, 1987. The disputes arisen relating to Endowment, Temple and its properties should be tried by the Honourable Endowment Tribunal, Hyderabad. Opposite party No.1 informed the circular issued by opposite party No.2. 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 called absent and set exparte.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 and A2 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B7 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
i. Whether the complainant is a Consumer?
ii. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
iv. To what relief?
7. POINT No.i :- Admittedly the complainant is a devotee of Lord Shiva. The complainant deposited the sum of Rs.10,000/- with opposite party No.1 temple under the receipt No.31903 dated 20-03-2006 under the scheme of “NITHYA KALYANA PATHAKAM”. The deposited certificate is marked as Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the letter dated 04-02-2011 issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant. It is admitted that under the said scheme the devotees who want to perform Pooja on every year on the specific date chosen are allowed to participate in the Kalyanam Function of God Lord Shiva on payment of Rs.10,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that the scheme has been came in to force from the date of deposit of amount and every year on 18th February Kalyanam was being performed. But on 04-02-2011 under Ex.A2 opposite party No.1 informed the complainant referring the circular Ex.B1 of opposite party No.2 (where in it is mentioned that permanent period of services of God Lord Shiva and Ammavaru was restricted to 10 years and the grace period of 3 years was granted to those devotees whose period was already completed 10 years by the 2010. It will be stopped after 2013) Aggrieved by the said circular the complainant filed this complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in restricting the sasvatha Seva period as 10 years instead of whole life. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 contended that the complainant is not a Consumer under section 2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act and the disputes is not comes under the purview of Consumer disputes. Consumer disputes under section 2 (1) (e) of the Act. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. All the disputes arisen relating to Endowment Temples and its properties should be tried by Endowment Tribunal, Hyderabad.
He submitted that under section 151 of Endowment Act. No suit or legal proceeding in-respect of the administration or management of an institution or Endowment or any other matter of dispute shall be instituted by any other Court of Law, and further submitted that under section 87 of Endowment Act the Endowment Tribunal having jurisdiction to enquire or decide any disputes and material of Endowment. To support of his contention he relied on decision reported in 1998 (NCD) CPJ – 3 – 492 where in it was held that the Government Services do not come under the purview of C.P. Act. He relied on another decision IV (2012) CPJ 634 (NC). In the above case goods sent through railway carriage were missing. National Commission held that the Consumer Court is barred to entertain the complaint. The facts of above cases are not similar to the present case on record. In this case opposite party No.1 had collected a sum of Rs.10,000/- to render services of Sesvatha Seva Kalyanam Pathakam. In Ex.A1 it is clearly mentioned that the services will be rendered during the life time of the depositor.
The learned counsel appearing the complainant contended that the circular orders shall not be applicable to the complainant as he paid the amount under Ex.A1 for particular item of services Sasvatha Seva Kalyanam. It is irregular and against the principles of natural justice. The Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. To support of his contention he relied on decisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court report in AIR (2008) A.P. 166 and another decision of High Court of Delhi report in W.P.(C) 8285/2010 & C.M.No.21319/2010 JK Mittal –Vs- Union of India and Others where in it was held that section 3 of C.P. Act is intended to provide on additional remedy to a party and the same is not meant to deny such a remedy to him. He filed another decisions reported in I (2012) CPJ 200 (NC), 2008 Bus LR 588 NCDRC, 2008 ELR NULL 348. It was held that as per settled Law, remedy under Act 1986 is in addition to and not in derogation of other remedies. Jurisdiction of Consumer Commission is not ousted by under the provisions of State-Co-Operative society Act. We heard the submissions of both the counsels, and decisions filed in the above case. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as consideration towards the services rendered during the life time of depositor. In Ex.A1 the above said condition is clearly mentioned. The opposite parties violated the terms and conditions of the scheme. Hence the complainant is a Consumer under section 2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act and the dispute relating the matter is a consumer dispute. This Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
10. Points ii & iii :- It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties introduced the scheme under “Sasvatha Seva Kalyanam Pathakam”. the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- under the said scheme (Ex.A1). The scheme has come into force and on every 18th February Kalyanam was being performed. On 04-02-2011 the opposite party No.1 under Ex.B2 informed the complainant referring the circular of opposite party No.2 (Ex.B1) in restricting the Sasvatha Seva Kalyanam to 10 years instead of whole period and 3 years grace period granted till 2013. When the period was already completed 10 years by the year 2010. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that opposite party No.1 collected amount of Rs.10,000/-from the complainant (Ex.A1) for that particular services long back. So the said circular (Ex.B1) of opposite party No.2 order shall not be applicable to the complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that opposite party No.1 is under the control of Endowment Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh (opposite party No.2). Opposite party No.1 informed the circular issued by opposite party No.2. The devotees preferred writ petition before the Honourable A.P. Act against the said temple. Opposite party filed the copy of said writ petitions are marked as Ex.B4 to Ex.B6. The petitions are pending before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- in year 2006 as consideration for that particular services during the life time of the depositor. The said condition is clearly mentioned in Ex.A1. The opposite parties restricted the services without hearing the parties, it is against the principles of natural justice and there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
Taking into consideration all the material on record we are of view that the complainant is entitled to continue the Nithya Kalyana Pathakam under the said scheme.
11. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to continue the Nithya Kalyana Pathakam in favour of the complainant along with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 15th day of January, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties :Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Bill Receipt for Rs.10,000/- dated 20-03-2006.
Ex.A2. Letter Rc.No.G2/2420/2011 dated 04-02-2011.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Circular No.24 in Rc.No.DP1/52200/2009
date 10-11-2010.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of Letter Rc.No.G2/2420/2011 dated 04-02-2011.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of Letter Rc.No.L1/6765/10 dated 02-12-2010.
Ex.B4 Photo copy of W.P.M.P.No.36992/2011 on behalf of the High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
dated 11-11-2011.
Ex.B5 Photo copy of Memorandum of Writ Petition MISC. Petition in
W.P.M.P.No.36992/2011 in W.P.No.29852/2011
dated 01-11-2011.
Ex.B6 Photo copy of Memorandum of Writ Petition in
W.P.No.25606/2011 In the Court of Judicature of Andhra
Pradesh, Hydeabad.
Ex.B7 Photo copy of Letter Rc.No.A1/2283/2009, dated 07-08-2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
// 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 :
