State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ranjith vs Thiyagarajan on 9 October, 2023
Daily Order IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. Present: Hon'ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT F.A. No. 434 of 2023 [Against the order passed in C.C. No.107 of 2022 dated 02.11.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Vellore]. Monday, the 9th day of October, 2023 Ranjith, No.3, Karpagam Store, Jagamma Chetty Street, 22nd Ward, Walajapet. ... Appellant/5th Opposite Party - Vs - 1. Thiyagarajan, S/o Kannappa Naicker, No.29, Swarnapettai, Walajapet, Walaja Taluk, Ranipet District. .. 1st Respondent/Complainant 2. The District Collector, Collector Office, Ranipet. .. 2nd Respondent/1st Op. Party 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, RDO Office, Ranipet. .. 3rd Respondent/2nd Op. Party 4. The Tahsildar, Walajapet. .. 4th Respondent/3rd Op. Party 5. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ranipet. .. 5th Respondent/4th Op. Party For Appellant/5th Opposite Party : M/s.V.Balaji For Respondents 2 to 5/Op.Parties 1 to 4: M/s. K.Kumaran-GP. This appeal came up for final hearing on 09.10.2023, and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellants and the Respondents and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:- O R D E R(Open Court)
R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as against the order dated 02.11.2022, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vellore, in C.C. No.107 of 2022, allowing the complaint filed by the 1st Respondent herein.
2. Appellant is the 5th Opposite Party, 1st Respondent is the Complainant and Respondents 2 to 5 are the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred in the course of this order as per their respective rankings before the District Commission.
3. The case of the complainant is that he was regularly buying rice, wheat and sugar in ration shop of the 5th opposite party situated at Ward-22, No.3, Karpagam Store, Jagamma Chetty Street, Walajapet. During corona period when he went to ration shop on 19.05.2020 at 11.00 a.m., he was standing in the queue. At that time the 5th Opposite party informed the complainant wheat is not available and asked him to come on the next day to buy wheat. Again on 20.05.2020 the complainant went to the ration shop and was standing in the queue at the ration shop. On that day also the 5th Opposite party informed the complainant wheat is not available and only rice is available. But the complainant had seen the 5th opposite party was supplying wheat to a person who was standing in the same queue. Further, while questioning the same, the 5th opposite party abused the complainant with filthy language and made an attempt to assault the complainant in front of the public. The public protected the complainant from the 5th opposite party. This had caused mental agony to the complainant. The complainant gave a complaint to the opposite parties 1 to 3 through Registered Post on 20.05.2020. But the opposite parties 1 to 3 did not take any action against the 5th opposite party. This had caused severe mental agony to the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency of service, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant before the District Commission claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages as against the opposite parties 1 to 5.
4. Though notice was served on the opposite parties they did not appear before the District Commission and hence they were set ex parte.
5. In order to prove the claim, on the side of the complainant, along with proof affidavit, 4 documents were filed and the same were marked, as Ex.A1 to A4. On the side of the opposite parties no document has been marked.
6. The District Commission after analyzing the material available on record, has passed an ex parte order in favour of the complainant directing the opposite parties 1 to 5 jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost to the complainant. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the 5th Opposite party.
7. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the 5th Opposite Party/Appellant and the Opposite parties 1 to 4/ Respondents 2 to 5.
8. Learned counsel for the 5th opposite party/appellant submitted that the complainant is a beneficiary of the State and the Central Government subsidies food items like rice, wheat, sugar etc., in the ration shop of the 5th opposite party. Further, Ex.A.1 proves that the complainant is possessing Ration Card and he is purchasing the goods under the subsidiary given by the Central and State Government. The District Commission failed to note that it is a well settled law that the matter relating to government subsidy does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act, because subsidy under PDS is free financial assistance and beneficiaries not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The District Commission failed to note that service as defined under Consumer Protection Act includes various organizations or departments but Civil Supply is not included. The District Commission failed to follow the ruling of this Commission in F.A.No.16 of 2009 that Consumer Complaint is not maintainable against Civil Supplies Department. Without considering this legal aspect, the District Commission has wrongly passed an order allowing the complaint and hence the same is liable to be set aside. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant/5th opposite party relied on the decision of the National Commission in the case of Gauri Devangan vs. Priyadarshani Gas Agency & another (2018 (III) CPJ (293) NC, wherein at paragraph No.7 it has been held as follows:
"Moreover, the person claiming subsidy is not a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as held by this Commission in Chaudhary Ashok Yadav V. The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and Another, I (2013) CPJ 668 (NC) = Revision Petition No.4894 of 2012, decided on 08.02.2013 wherein it has been held that a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a 'Complaint', as the subsidy is not a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and his remedy does not lie under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by filing a Complaint and that he can seek relief from a Civil Court, or some other relief from a Civil Court, or some other Forum, as per law. Thus, the Petitioner is not a 'Complainant' within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence the Complaint was not maintainable."
The learned counsel for the appellant/5th opposite party has also relied on the order of this Commission passed in F.A.No.16 of 2009 dated 22.03.2011 in the case of The Government of Tamil Nadu Through the District Collector, Madurai Road, Theni and two others Vs. Tmt.Pechiammal, it paragraph 6 it has been held as follows:
"6. It is not the case of goods sold or purchased for consideration, as defined under Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, and if at all the complainant should attempt to come under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. This sub clause says a Complaint means, any person, hires or avails of any service for consideration, thereby including any service, where there is no consideration. Service is also defined under Sec. 2(1)(d)(o), where some of the organizations or departments under the control are included, where we find the Civil Supplies department is not included, though they are the guardian of Complaint Protection. Therefore, if any authority under this department, assuming have committed any dereliction of duty, or deficiency in service, they cannot be brought under the umbrella of Consumer Protection Act, since there is no consideration for the service rendered, or to be rendered by the Opposite Parties. In the absence of consideration, or in other words, when the authorities are performing their duties under statutory obligations, they will not come within the four walls of service provider, or who rendered service, etc., as defined under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Unfortunately, the District Forum, without considering this aspect, viz., whether the public offices, under the civil supplies could be brought under the Consumer Protection Act, or not, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority case, in our considered opinion, has committed an error or even we would say illegality, which could be seen from the facts of the case. That case relates to building activities, and the authorities concerned therein, were created under the statute. As indicated above, in the definition service, housing construction is included. Therefore, despite the fact, that they are public authorities, conferred with statutory power, when they commit dereliction of duty, the Apex Court has observed, that they cannot claim immunity, which principle cannot be extended as such to the Opposite Parties, since admittedly they are all Government Department directly involving in the uplift of the society, performing statutory obligations under the Acts and Rules, without any consideration. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that the service expected to be rendered by the Opposite Parties, will not come within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, and in this view, neither the complainant could be called as a Complaint, nor the Opposite Parties could be called as a service provider, and the consequential result, should be Complaint itself is not maintainable."
9. Reading of the above judgments would clearly indicate that a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a 'Complainant', as the subsidy is not a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and his remedy does not lie under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that he can redress his grievance before a Civil Court or some other Forum, as per law. Hence, this Commission is of the considered view to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and accordingly the same is set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The Order dated 02.11.2022 passed in C.C. No.107 of 2022 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vellore, is hereby set aside and consequently, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
R.SUBBIAH PRESIDENT Index : Yes/ No GR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/October/2023