IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM: BOUDH
C. Case No.51/2009
Ram Narayan Joshi,
Aged about 70 years,
S/O-Late Hrushikesh Joshi,
Of village-Mahibahal, PO-Ramgarh,
PS/Dist-Boudh ……………………………Complainant
-Versus-
1. Secretary, Ramagarh G.P. Ramagarh
2. Sarapanch, Ramagarh G.P. Ramagarh
Both are C/O-Grama Panchayat Office, Ramagarh,
AT/PO-Ramagarh, PS/Dist-Boudh
3. Block Development Officer, Harabhanga
AT/PO/PS-Harabhanga, Dist- Boudh………………………..O.Ps
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.05.2009
Date of final order:23.12.2009
Present: Sri S.K.Mohapatra, M.A.LL.B, President,
Sri T.R.Agrawalla LL.B, Member &
Smt. Sunita Dalal, LL.B, Lady Member
Advocate for the complainant:- Sri K.C. Meher
For the Opposite Party .No.1:-In person
Advocate for the O.P.No.2:-.Sri B.C.Meher & Sri A.K.Sahu
Advocate for the O.P.No.3:-Govt.Pleader
FINAL ORDER
This order is arise out of complaint filed by the complainant one Ram Narayan Joshi against the O.Ps claiming Rs.28, 290/- in different heads. The complainant filed some documents marked exhibit-1 to 3. During course of hearing the O.Ps filed their counter along with some documents which marked exhibit-A to E. The complainant examined and cross examined him self by the parties.
The story of the dispute in brief is that the complainant is issued with a BPL ration card bearing no-697885 and get 35 K.Gs of rice per month till September 2008 and the O.Ps are jointly not allowed the complainant to receive the rice since October 2008 on wards. As such he made complaint against the O.P. both in verbally and in written before the District Collector but in vain. Hence this complaint.
On the other hand the O.P. stated that, the complainant is not a consumer as per provision of C.P. Act. They further stated that, the complainant was removed from A.A.Y. list vide resolution no-10 dated 28.06.2008 and as per letter no-22152 of FS & CW Department, Bhubaneswar dated 07.10.2005 as the complainant already receiving one Govt. facility that is pension under M.B.P.Y. scheme.
On the aforesaid pleading and contention advances by both the parties following issues are framed for determination.
I) Whether the complainant is a consumer?
II) Whether the O.Ps legally removed the name of the complainant from A.A.Y. list?
III) To what relief if any the complainant entitle for?
Issue no-I – As regard the issue no-I is concerned, it is admitted by both the parties that, the complainant had getting the benefit under A.A.Y. scheme and the O.Ps have provide service to him either directly or indirectly till September 2008 and after then the name of the complainant was removed from the list whimsically by the O.Ps. As such the complainant had put his grievance before this Forum which is comes under section 2 (d) (ii) of C.P. Act. Hence the complainant is a consumer under the system of monitoring the beneficiary scheme of the Government.
Issue no-II- This is the most vital issue to be discussed for determination of the real dispute between the parties. In this regard we examined two important documents one of which marked exhibit-3 on behalf of the complainant and another marked exhibit ‘A’ on behalf of the O.Ps. These two documents were issued by a common department that is ministry of Food Supply and Consumer Welfare, Bhubaneswar. In no where of both the documents it is mentioned that, the G.P. can stop the issue of rice which receives by a beneficiary under A.A.Y. ration card. Rather in para-4.2 of exhibit-3 it is clearly mentioned that, the total number of BPL ration cards including the Antodyoya Ration card in the District shall remain unchanged and shall not be increased without prior approval of the Government. Here in this case no approval of the Government for delete the name of the complainant from A.A.Y. list is received by the O.Ps. On the other hand the O.Ps give more emphasis to exhibit ‘A’ which filed by them and stated that, by virtue of clause 3(IV) of that letter vide no-22152/FSCW, Bhubaneswar dated-07.10.2005 they have removed the name of the complainant from A.A.Y. list in support of a resolution no-10/28.06.2008 of the G.P. We have gone through the exhibit ‘A’ which was issued by F.S. & C.W. Department, Govt. of Orissa and the subject matter of that letter is “selection of beneficiaries under expanded Antodyoya Anna Yajana (3rd phase). The theme of the letter is that, the Government of India have decided to expand Antodyoya Anna Yajana to cover an additional 2, 63,200 poorest families of the state of Orissa in 3rd phase of expansion. In this regard as the state Govt. decided to implement the 3rd phase of expansion under expanded A.A.Y. That letter is nothing but a direction to all the collector to complete the identification of beneficiaries under the third phase of expended A.A.Y. within a month. Further this clause 3 (IV) of that letter disclose that, persons covered under N.O.A.P., S.O.A.P. or Annapurna Scheme shall be excluded. But no where this letter empowered the O.Ps for not to issue rice to a beneficiary. At best the Gram Panchayat can prepare a list and sent it to the Govt. for its approval. Hence we do not except the contention of the O.Ps in this regard in absence of any document with regard to approval of the Government. Hence the entire action taken by the O.Ps in respect of the complaint is quite illegal and the O.Ps have exceeded their jurisdiction in this process. Although the complainant admitted during hearing of the dispute that, he has availed Madhubabu Pension of Rs.200/- per month, in our consideration one can not provided Rs.200/- in stead of 35 K.Gs of rice per month. If there any provision that one can not get more than one benefit the O.Ps should not have recommended the name the complainant to get Madhubabu Pension of Rs.200/- per month unless they receive the approval from the Govt. for withdraw of one benefit out of two. In this way also the O.Ps take the decision whimsically.
Issue no-(III) – In view of the above discussion, the complainant is entitle to get the rice under A.A.Y. Scheme since September 2008 till the date of receive of approval from the Government by the O.Ps. On the other hand this whimsical and unilateral decision taken by all the O.Ps must have created mental agony of the complainant and as such the O.P.No.2 and 3 are liable to pay compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant. Hence ordered.
ORDER
The O.P.No.2 and 3 are directed to issue the arrear rice after receive prescribe rate as per A.A.Y.scheme to the complainant since October 2008 till receive the approval from the Government in respect of his delete of the name from the A.A.Y. list. Both the O.Ps further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- each to the complainant towards his mental agony and cost of litigation. The order is to carry out within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to take action against the O.Ps as per C.P. Act. The complaint against the O.P No-1 is dismissed with out cost.
Order pronounced in the open Court , under the seal & signature of this Forim this the 23rd day of December 2009.
-s/d- -s/d- -s/d-
Member Member President,
Dist. Consumer Disputes Dist. Consumer Disputes Dist. Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Boudh. Redressal Forum,Boudh. Redressal Forum,Boudh.