KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 336/2010
JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2010
PRESENT:-
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
APPELLANT
P.B. Gupta, S/o Kunjunni Guptan,
Sree Sailam, Kulakkattukurissi P.O.,
Kadampazhipuram, Palakkad – 678 633.
( Rep. Adv. Sri. G.S. Nair)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1. The Manager,
ATNK & K Area Ex-Servicemen Canteen,
Palakkad – 678 013.
2. The Chairman, ATNK & KESM Canteens,
Chennai - 9
3. The Deputy Director General Canteen Services,
Quarter Master General’s Branch,
Army Head Quarters, New Delhi.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Mohan Idiculla & others)
JUDGMENT
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 26.3.2010 in C.C. 81/08 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad . The Forum below dismissed the complainant. It is aggrieved by this order the complainant preferred the present appeal.
The case of the complainant is that he is an Ex-Service man and is entitled for canteen facility as per the terms and conditions of their service. He was availing the facility and is in possession of permit card which was issued by the canteen manager Palakkad. But from 16.12.2008 onwards the first opposite party did not extend the service to the complainant stating that he has not submitted the application along with a copy of pension payment order for the issuance of a smart card in lieu of the permit card. According to the complainant he submitted the application along with copy of identity card , photos and a sum of Rs. 100/- towards cost of smart card but the first opposite party did not accept the application for want of copy of pension payment order. He submitted that he was not issued with the pension payment order and those documents are not necessary for the issuance of smart card. According to the complainant he was availing canteen facility till 15.2.2008 and the 1st opposite party denied the facility without assigning any valid reasons and ignoring the directions of the higher authorities. He also stated that all Exe-Servicemen are not equally extended the service at the canteen run by the first opposite party. This discrimination also amounts to deficiency in service. Thus alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties filed complainant before the Forum below.
The opposite parties filed version and contented that the complainant was not produced the attested copy of Pension Payment Order and other prescribed documents which are necessary for the issuance of a smart card, hence his application could not be entertained. They further submitted that though the complainant was holding a permit that will not entitle him for a smart card unless and until an application for issuance of smart card is filed along with necessary documents. The opposite parties denied the allegation that of Ex-Servicemen are not given equal services. They further contented that they have given proper instruction and advice regarding the issuance of smart card to the complainant. But he did not comply that instruction. They showed their readiness to issue the smart card, if the complainant produced all necessary documents for obtaining the same. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complainant with costs.
We heard the learned counsel for both sides.
The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued for the positions that the pension payment order is issued by the pension sanctioning authority to the pension disbursing authority for the payment of pension and that the complainant was not served with the pension payment order and this document is not necessary for the issuance of a smart card. He submitted that the original pension payment order or copy is not transmitted to the individuals and it is transmitted only to pension disbursing officers in early days. Only pension pass book has issued to the individuals. At the time of argument the learned counsel for the appellant /complainant submitted before us that attested copy of pension payment order could not be produced by the complainant before the Forum due to reasons beyond his control and he is taking every earnest efforts to procure the same from the authorities concerned.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite parties supported the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Forum below. It is argued that though the complainant had filed application for issuance of smart card, the same was not issued since the complainant has not produced the attested copy of pension payment order which is necessary for the issuance of the smart card. The guidelines to be followed for the issuance of various smart cards are mentioned by the Army Headquarters vide letter number 75740/CIMS/04 dated. 18.3.2006. Though the first respondent had given proper instructions to the appellant/complainant regarding the issuance of smart card the complainant has never complied with. Hence there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
As the complainant showed his readiness to produce the attested copy of the pension payment order, we find that it is just and proper to give the complainant an opportunity to produce the same to the Forum below.
In the result, the order of the Forum below is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Forum below to afford of an opportunity to the complainant to produce the attested copy of pension payment order for enabling the Forum below to pass an order on merits. The matter will stand posted before the Forum on 27.1.2011.
The office is directed to transmit the copy of this order as well as the L.C.R. to the Forum urgently.
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
ST
