DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 8^th day of July 2011 .

Present : Smt. H. Seena, President

: Smt. Preetha G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of Filing : 05/07/2008

C.C.No.81/2008

P.B. Gupta

S/o.Kunjunni Gupthan

Sree Sailam

Kulakkattukurissi

Kadampazhipuram

Palakkad – 678 635. - Complainant

(Adv.P.Sreeprakash)

V/s

1. The Manager

ATNK & K Area Ex-Servicemen Canteen

Palakkad – 678 013

(Adv.G. Jayachandran)

2. The Chairman

ATNK & K ESM Canteens

Chennai – 9.

(Adv.G. Jayachandran)

3. The Deputy Director General Canteen Services

Quarter Master General's Branch

Army Headquarters

New Delhi. - Opposite parties

(Adv.G. Jayachandran)

O R D E R

By Smt. H. Seena, President.

The case of the complainant in brief.

Complainant is an ex-serviceman. According to him all Soldiers and ex-servicemen are entitled for canteen facilities as per the terms and conditions of their service. Complainant also was availing the facilities from the ATNK & K area ESM Canteen at Palakkad and is in possession of permit card No. OR/2961 which was issued to him on 05/04/2003 by the Canteen Manager, Palakkad. But from 16/02/2008 onwards the 1^st opposite party did not extend the service to the complainant stating that he has not submitted an application along with a copy of Pension Payment Order for issue of a smart card in lieu of the permit card No. OR/2961. The complainant says that he had submitted

- 2 -

the application along with the copy of Ex-serviceman identity card, photos and an amount of Rs.100/- towards the cost of smart card. But the 1^st opposite party did not accept the application for want of a copy of Pension Payment Order.

According to the complainant, Pension Payment Order is issued by the pension sanctioning authority to the pension disbursing authority for payment of pension. The complainant submits that he has not issued with the Pension Payment Order and this document is not necessary to issue a smart card (permit to purchase canteen stores). Secondly complainant is already holding a permit. The complainant was availing canteen facilities till 15/02/2008. 1^st opposite party denied the canteen facility to the complainant from 16/02/2008 without assigning any valid reasons and ignoring the directions of the Higher authorities. A fresh application from the complainant is not at all necessary to issue the smart card which is only a follow up procedure. As per the letter No.4008/DGR/Ser/Res-9 dated 26/04/1993, from Director General Resettlement to DDG(C.S) QMG Branch, Army Headquarters, all Ex-servicemen who are in possession of Ex-servicemen identity card are eligible to avail canteen facilities. So non pensioners are also eligible for canteen facilities and no Pension Payment Order will be issued in their case. As per letter No.96003/Q/DDGCS dated 08/05/2007 of Quarter Master Generals Branch Deputy Directorate General Canteen Services, Army Headquarters, New Delhi also refers the canteen facilities to Ex-servicemen.

When the complainant failed to get service and justice from the 1^st opposite party, he approached the National Ex-Servicemen Co-ordination Committee, Palakkad and the committee represented the grievances vide letter NEXCC/PKD/WEL dated 05/03/2008 and 17/04/2008. But the authorities did not even care to reply. Refusing the canteen facilities stating that the complainant did not produce Pension Payment Order amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties. Further all Ex-servicemen are not equally extended the service at the canteen run by 1^st opposite party. Some are provided service on all working days while service to some others are restricted to certain days only. This discrimination also amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

- 3 -

Complainant claims for an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony,

physical strain, financial loss and inconvenience caused to the complainant and also prays for directing the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.500/ per month to compensate the loss incurred to him due to refusal of service till the services are resumed. Complainant also prays for directing the opposite parties to render service to ex-servicemen without any discrimination.

Contentions raised by opposite parties are as follows:

According to the opposite party the say of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party did not extend service to him is incorrect. The complainant has filed an application before the 1^st opposite party for issuance of a smart card in his name and the same was not issued since the complainant has not produced an attested copy of his Pension Payment Order (PPO) and other prescribed documents which are necessary for the issuance of smart card. The applications for the issuance of smart card will be only entertained if documents like Pension Payment Order, discharge book, pension book and ex-servicemen identity card are produced in original so that the same can be verified from the office and necessary endorsements can be made to the original documents. These types of measures are adopted so as to avoid the members from committing any malpractices. The guidelines and orders to be followed for issuance of various smart cards is mentioned by the Army Headquarters vide letter No. 75740/CIMS/Q4 dated 18/03/2006. The fact that the complainant was holding a permit will not entitle the complainant for a smart card unless and until an application for issuance of smart card is filed. Non-pensioners are also entitled for a smart card if they have a service of 5 years and above. To prove the said fact relevant documents are to be produced along with the application form. The opposite party also denies the allegation that all ex-servicemen are not given equal services. There is no discrimination in providing service to the members to canteen. Canteen is located in the new area and is spacious and having self service facility.

Opposite parties states that the canteen is not working on profit oriented, it is a welfare measure which is being extended for efficient management of canteen affairs as well as to ensure better services to the customers. Strength has been divided since the

- 4 -

category under “other ranks” forms the major strength. Therefore, four working days out of 5 ½ days in a week has been allotted to them. There is 'liquor only counter' working everyday for everybody with effect from 1^st December 2007 in order to avoid hardship to working personnel. The opposite party had given proper instructions and advice to the complainant regarding the issuance of smart card, which the complainant has never complied with. The 1^st opposite party is ready to accept the application form for issuance of smart card, if the complainant produces all necessary documents for the issuance of card.

According to the opposite parties, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and hence they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

After considering the evidence on record the forum had arrived at a conclusion that production of PPO is a must for issuance of smart card. Since the complainant has not produced the same before the opposite party, it was held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint was dismissed.

The matter was taken up in appeal and it was remanded back to the forum to afford opportunity to complainant to produce attested copy of PPO and to pass order on merits.

The evidence adduced consists of the chief affidavit of both parties. Exhibit A1 to A10 marked on the side of complainant. Ext. B1 and B2 marked on the side of opposite parties. OP1 was cross examined as DW1.

Now the issues for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties?

2. If so, what is the relief complainant is entitled to?

Issues 1 & 2:

The grievance of the complainant is regarding the non availability of canteen facilities of which 1^st opposite party is the General Manager. Complainant's application for issuance of smart card is not processed by 1^st opposite party for want of pension payment order. According to the complainant, it is not mandatory and he is not having any Pension Payment Order with him. Further a fresh application for smart card is not necessary as it is only a follow up procedure. Further submission of the complainant is that all ex-servicemen

- 5 -

who are in possession of ex-servicemen identity card are eligible to avail canteen facilities. Non pensioners, who will not be having any Pension Payment Order are also getting canteen facilities.

Opposite parties on the other hand has contented that the smart card was not issued in the name of the complainant because he has not produced attested copy of his Pension Payment Order and other prescribed documents. 1^st Opposite party has only acted as per guidelines and order issued by the Army Head quarters. According to 1^st opposite party, the fact that the complainant was holding a permit will not entitle him for a smart card unless an application for issuance of smart card is filed. Non pensioners are also entitled for a smart card if they have a service of 5 years and above. To prove the same, relevant documents are to be produced along with the application form.

Heard both parties and has gone through the entire evidence on record.

It is clear that the complainant has already applied for the issuance of a smart card. The say of the complainant that smart card is not a mandatory one for availing canteen facility is not supported by any documentary evidence. It is argued by the complainant that non pensioners who are not having any Pension Payment Order are also provided with the canteen facilities. That stand cannot be accepted since the complainant will not come under the said category and different sets of rules govern the former class. It is admitted by the complainant that he is a pensioner having Pension Payment Order, but the same was with the pension disbursing authority at Trivandrum. 1^st opposite party has produced Exhibit B1 and B2 documents. Exhibit B1 is the letter No.75740/CIMS/Q4 issued by the army head quarters containing the guidelines and orders to be followed for issuance of smart cards. Exhibit B2 is the specimen of the application form for the issuance of smart card. Exhibit B1 contains the various sequences of actions to be followed by canteen management committee regarding the processing of the application form for smart card and its issuance. In the said document serial No.5 clause (g) runs as follows. “Validate the data filled in the application forms from supporting documents”. Appendix 'H' attached to Exhibit B1 contains some common questions regarding smart cards and their answers. Regarding question whether smart card is compulsory in various defence installation/depot/defence organizations, the answer provided is that smart card is mandatory for all civilians who are to buy stores from URC. Further in the specimen

- 6 -

application form marked as Exhibit B2, contains the requisite documents to be filed along with the application. It is specifically mentioned in the said instructions that photocopy of PP Order duly attested by a gazetted Officer to be attached with the application.

Going through the entire evidence on record, we are of the view that an officer who is acting in strict compliance of the guidelines and orders issued by his superior authorities cannot be said to deficient in his service. While the case was going on several times 1^st opposite party expressed his willingness to settle the matter once the attested copy of the Pension Payment Order is produced by the complainant. Complainant has produced copy of the PPO only when the case was remanded back to the forum.

The learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant's name in the discharge book is P.Balakrishnan and in the Ex-servicemen identity card is P.B.Guptha. He has changed his name through gazette notification and as per Army Headquarters policy change of name after retirement is not permitted.

In this regard Ist opposite party while cross examination has admitted that the complainant has produced the gazette notification. Moreover gazette notification is a public document. Opposite party cannot deny issuance of smart card on this ground.

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allowed the complaint. Opposite party is directed to issue smart card within two weeks on application by the complainant with the requisite documents. No compensation and cost awarded. Copy of PPO produced by complainant shall be released on application.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 8^th day of July, 2011.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MEMBER

Sd/-

MEMBER

- 7 -

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

DW1 - Dated 9^th February 2009

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1. Ext. A1 – Copy of permit for purchase of canteen stores No. OR-2961

2. Ext. A1(a) – Copy of Dependants list with photo

3. Ext. A1(b) – Copy of instructions

4. Ext. A2 – Copy of CD2 dated 21/06/1993

5. Ext. A3 - Copy of details of Canteen facilities to Ex-servicemen

6. Ext. A4 – Copy of letter addressed to The Chairman,ATNKK ESM Canteens, Chennai

7. Ext. A5- Copy of letter addressed to Deputy Directorate General Canteen Services

8. Ext. A6 – Postal card dated 07/11/2008

9. Ext. A7 – Copy of receipt of petition No.294/07

10. Ext. A8 – Copy of letter addressed to Airforce records office, New Delhi

11. Ext. A9. - Copy of letter issue of Duplicate pension book

12. Ext.A10 – Copy of PPO

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

1. Ext. B1 – Copy Policy for introduction of canteen inventory management software

2. Ext. B2 – Copy of canteen Smart card application form

Forums Exhibits

Nil

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 26^th day of March 2010 .

Present : Smt. H. Seena, President

: Smt. Preetha G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.81/2008

P.B. Gupta

S/o.Kunjunni Gupthan

Sree Sailam

Kulakkattukurissi

Kadampazhipuram

Palakkad – 678 635. - Complainant

(Adv.K.G. Aravindakshan & Adv.K. Bhuvanendran)

V/s

1. The Manager

ATNK & K Area Ex-Servicemen Canteen

Palakkad – 678 013

(Adv.G. Jayachandran)

2. The Chairman

ATNK & K ESM Canteens

Chennai – 9.

(Adv.G. Jayachandran)

3. The Deputy Director General Canteen Services

Quarter Master General’s Branch

Army Headquarters

New Delhi. - Opposite parties

(Adv.G. Jayachandran)

O R D E R

By Smt. H. Seena, President.

The case of the complainant in brief

Complainant is an ex-servicemen. According to him all Soldiers and ex-servicemen are entitled for canteen facilities as per the terms and conditions of their service. Complainant also was availing the facilities from the ATNK & K area ESM Canteen at Palakkad and is in possession of permit card No. OR/2961 which was issued to him on 05/04/2003 by the Canteen Manager, Palakkad. But from 16/02/2008 onwards the 1^st opposite party did not extend the service to the complainant stating that he has not submitted an application along with a copy of Pension Payment Order for issue of a smart card in lieu of the permit card No. OR/2961. The complainant says that he had submitted

- 2 -

the application along with the copy of Ex-serviceman identity card, photos and an amount of Rs.100/- towards the cost of smart card. But the 1^st opposite party did not accept the application for want of a copy of Pension Payment Order.

According to the complainant, Pension Payment Order is issued by the pension sanctioning authority to the pension disbursing authority for payment of pension. The complainant submits that he has not issued with the Pension Payment Order and this document is not necessary to issue a smart card (permit to purchase canteen stores). Secondly complainant is already holding a permit. The complainant was availing canteen facilities till 15/02/2008. 1^st opposite party denied the canteen facility to the complainant from 16/02/2008 without assigning any valid reasons and ignoring the directions of the Higher authorities. A fresh application from the complainant is not at all necessary to issue the smart card which is only a follow up procedure. As per the letter No.4008/DGR/Ser/Res-9 dated 26/04/1993, from Director General Resettlement to DDG(C.S) QMG Branch, Army Headquarters, all Ex-servicemen who are in possession of Ex-servicemen identity card are eligible to avail canteen facilities. So non pensioners are also eligible for canteen facilities and no Pension Payment Order will be issued in their case. As per letter No.96003/Q/DDGCS dated 08/05/2007 of Quarter Master Generals Branch Deputy Directorate General Canteen Services, Army Headquarters, New Delhi also refers the canteen facilities to Ex-servicemen.

When the complainant failed to get service and justice from the 1^st opposite party, he approached the National Ex-Servicemen Co-ordination Committee, Palakkad and the committee represented the grievances vide letter NEXCC/PKD/WEL dated 05/03/2008 and 17/04/2008. But the authorities did not even care to reply. Refusing the canteen facilities stating that the complainant did not produce Pension Payment Order amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties. Further all Ex-servicemen are not equally extended the service at the canteen run by 1^st opposite party. Some are provided service on all working days while service to some others are restricted to certain days only. This discrimination also amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

- 3 -

Complainant claims for an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony,

physical strain, financial loss and inconvenience caused to the complainant and also prays for directing the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.500/ per month to compensate the loss incurred to him due to refusal of service till the services are resumed. Complainant also prays for directing the opposite parties to render service to ex-servicemen without any discrimination.

Contentions raised by opposite parties are as follows:

According to the opposite party the say of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party did not extend service to him is incorrect. The complainant has filed an application before the 1^st opposite party for issuance of a smart card in his name and the same was not issued since the complainant has not produced an attested copy of his Pension Payment Order (PPO) and other prescribed documents which are necessary for the issuance of smart card. The applications for the issuance of smart card will be only entertained if documents like Pension Payment Order, discharge book, pension book and ex-servicemen identity card are produced in original so that the same can be verified from the office and necessary endorsements can be made to the original documents. These types of measures are adopted so as to avoid the members from committing any malpractices. The guidelines and orders to be followed for issuances of various smart cards is mentioned by the Army Headquarters vide letter No. 75740/CIMS/Q4 dated 18/03/2006. The fact that the complainant was holding a permit will not entitle the complainant for a smart card unless and until an application for issuance of smart card is filed. Non-pensioners are also entitled for a smart card if they have a service of 5 years and above. To prove the said fact relevant documents are to be produced along with the application form. The opposite party also denies the allegation that all ex-servicemen are not given equal services . There is no discrimination in providing service to the members to canteen. Canteen in located in the new area and is spacious and having self service facility.

Opposite parties states that the canteen is not working on profit oriented, it is a welfare measure which is being extended for efficient management of canteen affairs as well as to ensure better services to the customers. Strength has been divided since the category

- 4 -

under “other ranks” forms the major strength. Therefore, four working days out of

5 ½ days in a week has been allotted to them. There is ’liquor only counter’ working

everyday for everybody with effect from 1^st December 2007 in order to avoid hardship to working personnel. The opposite party had given proper instructions and advice to the complainant regarding the issuance of smart card, which the complainant has never complied with. The 1^st opposite party is ready to accept the application form for issuance of smart card, if the complainant produces all necessary documents for the issuance of card.

According to the opposite parties, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and hence they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost

The evidence adduced consists of the chief affidavit of both parties. Exhibit A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibit B1 and B2 marked on the side of opposite parties. 1^st opposite party was cross examined as DW1.

Now the issues for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties?

2. If so, what is the relief complainant is entitled to?

Issues 1 & 2:

The grievance of the complainant is regarding the non availability of canteen facilities of which 1^st opposite party is the General Manager. Complainants application for issuance of smart card is not processed by 1^st opposite party for want of pension payment order. According to the complainant, it is not mandatory and he is not having any Pension Payment Order with him. Further a fresh application for smart card is not necessary as it is only a follow up procedure. Further submission of the complainant is that all ex-servicemen who are in possession of ex-servicemen identity card are eligible to avail canteen facilities. Non pensioners, who will not be having any Pension Payment Order are also getting canteen facilities.

- 5 -

Opposite parties on the other hand has contented that the smart card was not issued in

the name of the complainant because he has not produced attested copy of his Pension Payment Order and other prescribed documents. 1^st Opposite party has only acted as per guidelines and order issued by the Army Head quarters. According to 1^st opposite party, the fact that the complainant was holding a permit will not entitle him for a smart card unless an application for issuance of smart card is filed. Non pensioners are also entitled for a smart card if they have a service of 5 years and above. To prove the same, relevant documents are to be produced along with the application form.

Heard both parties and has gone through the entire evidence on record.

It is clear that the complainant has already applied for the issuance of a smart card. The say of the complainant that smart card is not a mandatory one for availing canteen facility is not supported by any documentary evidence. It is argued by the complainant that non pensioners who are not having any Pension Payment Order are also provided with the canteen facilities. That stand cannot be accepted since the complainant will not come under the said category and different sets of rules govern the former class. It is admitted by the complainant that he is a pensioner having Pension Payment Order, but the same was with the pension disbursing authority at Trivandrum. It is not understood what prevented the complainant from obtaining a certified copy from the pension disbursing authority and submits the same with the 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party has produced Exhibit B1 and B2 documents. Exhibit B1 is the letter No.75740/CIMS/OA issued by the army head quarters containing the guidelines and orders to be followed for issuance of smart cards. Exhibit B2 is the specimen of the application form for the issuance of smart card. Exhibit B1 contains the various sequences of actions to be followed by canteen management committee regarding the processing of the application form for smart card and its issuance. In the said document serial No.5 clause (g) runs as follows. “Validate the data filled in the application forms from supporting documents”. Appendix ’H’ attached to Exhibit B1 contains some common questions regarding smart cards and their answers. Regarding question whether smart card is compulsory in various defence installation/depot/defence organizations, the answer provided is that smart card is mandatory for all civilians who are

- 6 -

to buy stores from URC. Further in the specimen application ion form marked as Exhibit B2, contains the requisite documents to be filed along with the application. It is specifically mentioned in the said instructions that photocopy of PP Order duly attested by a gazetted Officer to be attached with the application.

Going through the entire evidence on record. We are of the view that an officer who is acting in strict compliance of the guidelines and orders issued by his superior authorities cannot be said to deficient in his service. While the case was going on several times 1^st opposite party expressed his willingness to settle the matter once the attested copy of the Pension Payment Order is produced by the complainant. Complainant has not so far produced the same.

In view of the above discussions, we hold the view that the complainant miserably failed to prove a case in his favour.

In the result complaint dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of March, 2010.

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

DW1 - Dated 9^th February 2009

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1. Ext. A1 – Copy of permit for purchase of canteen stores No. OR-2961

- 7 -

2. Ext. A1(a) – Copy of Dependants list with photo

3. Ext. A1(b) – Copy of instructions

4. Ext. A2 – Copy of CD2 dated 21/06/1993

5. Ext. A3 - Copy of details of Canteen facilities to Ex-servicemen

6. Ext. A4 – Copy of letter addressed to The Chairman,ATNKK ESM Canteens, Chennai

7. Ext. A5- Copy of letter addressed to Deputy Directorate General Canteen Services

8. Ext. A6 – Postal card dated 07/11/2008

9. Ext. A7 – Copy of receipt of petition No.294/07

10. Ext. A8 – Copy of letter addressed to Airforce records office, New Delhi

11. Ext. A9. - Copy of letter issue of Duplicate pension book

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

1. Ext. B1 – Copy Policy for introduction of canteen inventory management software

2. Ext. B2 – Copy of canteen Smart card application form

Forums Exhibits

Nil