State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Urmila Devi. vs State Of H.P. & Ors. on 16 December, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 186/2018
Date of Presentation: 17.07.2018
Order Reserved on : 02.07.2019
Date of Order : 16.12.2019
......
Smt. Urmila Devi D/o Shri Laxman Dass resident of Village and
Post Office Chakmoh Tehsil Barsar District Hamirpur (H.P).
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. State of H.P. through District Collector Hamirpur (H.P).
......Respondent No.1/opposite party No.1
2. G.N.G Trading Company Private Limited Plot No.10 Sector
44 Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana) through its Project Manager
Mr. Abhishek Reghubansi.
3. Gram Panchayat Bijhari Tehsil Barsar District Hamirpur
H.P. through its Pradhan.
4. Shri Kehar Singh Chandrani son of Nathu Ram resident of
Village and Post Office Bijhari Tehsil Barsar District
Hamirpur (H.P).
......Respondents No.2 to 4/opposite parties No.2 to 4
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma Advocate.
For RespondentNo.1 : Mr. Bhairav Negi Ld. ADA.
For Respondents No.2to4: Ex-parte.
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Urmila Devi Versus State of H.P & Ors.
F.A. No.186/2018
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 07.06.2018 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission in consumer complaint No.98/2016 titled Urmila Devi Versus State of H.P & Ors. Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Smt. Urmila Devi Complainant senior citizen aged 61 years filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that complainant is unemployed and on her request opposite party No.2 allotted Lok Mitra Kendera to complainant and also received consideration amount of Rs.18045/-(Eighteen thousand forty five) vide receipt No.3476 dated 02.05.2012. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 did not issue password and user name to complainant and in the absence of password and user name complainant could not operate Lok Mitra Kendera. It is further pleaded that complainant also took shop on rent @ Rs.2400/-(Two thousand four hundred) per month and also engaged computer operator @ Rs.5000/-(Five thousand) per month and also purchased other items like computer scanner, fax, furniture and incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.175000/-(One lac seventy five thousand) on 2 Urmila Devi Versus State of H.P & Ors.F.A. No.186/2018
infrastructure for running the Lok Mitra Kendera. It is pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief for payment of Rs.200000/-(Two lac) for financial loss suffered by complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.100000/-(One lac) for mental pain and harassment. In addition complainant also sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs.20000/-(Twenty thousand). Complainant also sought further relief to the effect that Lok Mitra Kendera be allotted to her. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.1. It is pleaded that as per agreement signed with GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. opposite party No.2 was under legal obligation to short list VLEs and set up CSCs. It is pleaded that monetary transaction took place between complainant and opposite party No.2 only and dispute is between complainant and opposite party No.2 only. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped to file the present consumer complaint due to her own act, conduct and omission. It is admitted that State of H.P launched CSCs scheme popularly known as Lok Mitra Kendera Project with the aim and object to establish E-Governance Centers at 3 Urmila Devi Versus State of H.P & Ors.
F.A. No.186/2018Panchayat levels in rural area for providing day to day facility to the general public. It is further pleaded that there is no privity of contract between complainant and opposite party No.1. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that complainant has signed independent agreement and complainant became franchisee of opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that several complaints written and oral received by residents of village to the effect that complainant does not open Lok Mitra Kendera and they are not able to avail services. It is pleaded that user name and password was issued to complainant but complainant failed to provide service through Lok Mitra Kendera and her centre remained non active for a period of 24 (Twenty four) months. It is pleaded that complaint was filed by thirty three persons of locality relating to non-operation of Lok Mitra Kendera on the part of complainant.
5. It is admitted that complainant has deposited an amount to the tune of Rs.18045/-(Eighteen thousand forty five) vide receipt No.3476. It is pleaded that deposited amount is not refundable amount. It is pleaded that complainant has herself violated clause of agreement. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 was directed by Department of Information Technology for closing all non-operational LMK 4 Urmila Devi Versus State of H.P & Ors.
F.A. No.186/2018centers which were not providing service to common rural peoples. It is further pleaded that after receiving complaints regarding non-operation of LMK from locality and keeping in view direction of DIT opposite party cancelled the Lok Mitra Kendera of complainant. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
6. Opposite parties No.3 & 4 did not file version before learned DCF/DCC and learned DCF/DCC proceeded ex-parte against opposite parties No.3 & 4.
7. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission dismissed the consumer complaint filed by complainant. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned DCF/DCC complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
8. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and learned ADA appearing on behalf of co-respondent No.1 and we have also perused entire record carefully. None appeared on behalf of co-respondents No.2 to 4 before State Commission despite service. Co-respondents No.2 to 4 were proceeded ex-parte.
5
Urmila Devi Versus State of H.P & Ors.
F.A. No.186/2018
9. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant lady who is senior citizen of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. was under
legal obligation to issue prior notice to Smt. Urmila Devi for blocking user name and password of Lok Mitra Kendera of complainant on the concept of principle of natural justice and on the concept of "AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM" ?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
10. Complainant filed affidavit Annexure-C1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant deposited an amount of Rs.18045/-(Eighteen thousand forty five) vide receipt No.3476 with opposite party No.2 as consideration amount. There is recital in affidavit that after receiving consideration amount on 02.05.2012 opposite party No.2 did not issue password and user name to complainant in order to enable complainant to run her Lok Mitra Kendera in Gram Panchayat Bijhari. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No.2 also did not refund consideration amount.
There is recital in affidavit that complainant also took shop on rent and also engaged one computer operator to run Lok Mitra Kendera and also invested huge amount for purchase of 6 Urmila Devi Versus State of H.P & Ors.
F.A. No.186/2018computer scanner, fax and furniture. There is recital in affidavit that complainant incurred expenditure of Rs.175000/-(One lac seventy five thousand). State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant.
11. Opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of Dr. Richa Verma District Collector Hamirpur (H.P) in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has not cause of action against opposite party No.1. There is recital in affidavit that privity of contract was between complainant and opposite party No.2. There is recital in affidavit that State Govt. has no role to play in selection of Village Level Entrepreneurs. There is recital in affidavit that GNG Trading company was under legal obligation to short list VLEs. There is recital in affidavit that monetary transaction took place between complainant and GNG Trading Company only.
12. Opposite party No.2 filed affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal Director GNG Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant was franchisee of opposite party No.2. There is recital in affidavit that franchisee agreed to provide services to the rural citizens. There is recital in affidavit that user name and password was issued to complainant but complainant failed to provide services through the Lok Mitra Kendera and her centre was 7 Urmila Devi Versus State of H.P & Ors.
F.A. No.186/2018non-operative for a period of 24 (Twenty four) months. There is recital in affidavit that complaints regarding her non operative centre was received from thirty three persons of the locality. There is recital in affidavit that consideration amount paid by franchisee was non-refundable. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No.2 was directed by Information Technology Department for closing non-operational centers which were not providing services to common rural people. State Commission has also carefully perused all annexures filed by opposite parties.
13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite party No.2 blocked username and password of complainant without prior notice to complainant and complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.200000/-(Two lac) for financial loss suffered by complainant is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that complainant deposited an amount of Rs.18045/- (Eighteen thousand forty five) with GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. vide receipt No.3476 dated 02.05.2012 for running Lok Mitra Kendera as registration fee. Opposite party No.2 blocked password and user name on the plea that opposite party No.2 received complaints of residents of locality to the effect that complainant was not operating Lok Mitra Kendera. State Commission is of the opinion that prior to blocking username 8 Urmila Devi Versus State of H.P & Ors.
F.A. No.186/2018and password opposite party No.2 was under legal obligation to issue notice to Smt. Urmila Devi. There is no evidence on record that GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. has issued any notice to Smt. Urmila Devi complainant prior to blocking her user name and password relating to Lok Mitra Kendera.
14. Shri Gaurav Aggarwal Director GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. did not mention in his affidavit that prior notice was issued to Smt. Urmila Devi. State Commission is of the opinion that blocking of user name and password by GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. without issuing notice to Smt. Urmila Devi is ipso facto violation of principle of natural justice. State Commission is of the opinion that deficiency on the part of GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. is writ large in the present matter. It is proved on record that GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. blocked user name and password of LMC and thereafter Smt. Urmila Devi could not operate Lok Mitra Kendera. It is proved on record that GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. has ipso facto violated concept of 'AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM'.
15. It is proved on record that Smt. Urmila Devi also filed writ petition No.3633/2014 before Hon'ble High Court of H.P titled Urmila Devi Versus Deputy Commissioner and others and same was decided on 30.06.2014. Civil writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn because Smt. Urmila Devi sought permission to withdraw civil writ petition with 9 Urmila Devi Versus State of H.P & Ors.
F.A. No.186/2018liberty to approach appropriate Authority and Hon'ble High Court in civil writ petition No.3633/2014 granted permission to Smt. Urmila Devi to approach appropriate Authority for redressal of her grievance vide order dated 30.06.2014 placed on record.
16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is female unemployed lady aged 61 (Sixty one) years and also senior citizen of India and she is entitled to a sum of Rs.100000/-(One lac) as compensation for mental pain and harassment is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. has blocked password and user name of complainant without giving prior notice and violated principle of natural justice. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is legally entitled for reasonable compensation for mental pain and harassment.
17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is also legally entitled for litigation costs is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has engaged Advocate before learned DCF/DCC and has also paid litigation costs & other expenses. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is legally entitled for reasonable litigation costs. 10
Urmila Devi Versus State of H.P & Ors.
F.A. No.186/2018
18. Submission of learned ADA appearing on behalf of State of H.P that there was no privity of contract between complainant and opposite party No.1 and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed against opposite party No.1 is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that there was no privity of contract between complainant and State of H.P. Complainant did not pay any consideration amount to State of H.P. Hence State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to dismiss consumer complaint against opposite party No.1 i.e. State of H.P.
19. Plea of opposite party No.2 i.e. GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. in version that thirty three persons filed complaints against Smt. Urmila Devi alleging that Smt. Urmila Devi was not operating Lok Mitra Kendera and thereafter password and user name of Smt. Urmila Devi was blocked and thereafter Lok Mitra Kendera was allotted to Sh. Kehar Singh and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that Smt. Urmila Devi is female lady aged 61 years and is senior citizen of India. State Commission is of the opinion that GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. was under legal obligation to give prior notice to Smt. Urmila Devi before blocking her user name and 11 Urmila Devi Versus State of H.P & Ors.
F.A. No.186/2018password relating to Lok Mitra Kendera. There is no evidence on record that GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. has issued any prior notice to Smt. Urmila Devi prior to blocking user name and password relating to Lok Mitra Kendera. State Commission is of the opinion that violation of principle of natural justice and violation of concept of 'AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM' on the part of GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. is writ large in the present matter. State Commission is of the opinion that GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. has committed deficiency in service. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
20. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal filed by complainant is partly allowed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is set aside. It is ordered that GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. shall refund an amount of Rs.18045/-(Eighteen thousand forty five) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of consumer complaint till actual payment.
21. It is further ordered that in addition GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. shall pay compensation to complainant for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand). It is further ordered that GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. shall pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of 12 Urmila Devi Versus State of H.P & Ors.
F.A. No.186/2018Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand). Consumer complaint against opposite parties No.1, 3 & 4 is dismissed on the concept of "NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT' with opposite parties No.1, 3 &
4. GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. shall comply order within one month after receipt of certified copy of order. Consideration amount receipt No.3476 Annexure-P-5 issued by GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Smt. Urmila Devi shall form part and parcel of order.
22. File of learned DCF/DCC alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Sunita Sharma Member 16.12.2019 K.D 13