State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Range Officer Muthanga Range vs K J John on 28 January, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM First Appeal No. A/16/28 (Arisen out of Order Dated 08/08/2015 in Case No. CC/106/2015 of District Wayanad) 1. RANGE OFFICER MUTHANGA RANGE MUTHANGA SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK WAYANAD WAYANAD ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. K J JOHN KALAMBATT HOUSE NEMMENIKUNNU P O THOTTAMOOLA SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK WAYANAD ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.Q.BARKATH ALI PRESIDENT SRI. V. V. JOSE MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Dated this the 28th January, 2016 PRESENT:HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI, PRESIDENT SRI.V.V.JOSE, MEMBER A/28/2016 Range Officer, Muthanga Range, Muthanga, Sulthan Bathery Taluk - Appellant/Opposite party (By Adv. M.Nizarudeen) Vs K.J.John, S/o.Joseph, Kalambatt House, Nenmenikunnu (P.O), - Respondent/Complainant Thottamoola, Sulthan Bathery Taluk. JUDGMENT
By HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.Barkathali, President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC 106/2015 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad, Kalpetta challenging the order of the Forum dated 08/08/2015 directing the opposite party, Forest Range Officer, Muthanga Range to give the sanctioned compensation by the Government to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.3,000/-.
The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:
The house of the complainant was attacked by monkey and caused much damage to the house and the articles kept therein . Complainant reported the matter to the opposite party to get compensation, The opposite party the Range Officer came to the spot and assessed the damages and reported the matter to the (2) government. After sanctioning the compensation from the government , the opposite party intimated the complainant to come and collect the cheque. But when the complainant approached the opposite party he refused to give the cheque to the complainant stating that there is a Forest offence case No. OR 20/2002 is pending against him . No such case is pending against this complainant. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint for a direction directing the opposite party to give the sanctioned compensation to the complainant and claiming compensation of Rs.25,000/- and a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The opposite party is Forest Range Officer, Muthanga Range, Sulthanbathery. He in his version denied all the allegations leveled against him .
Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked as Ext.A1 the Mathrubhumi Daily dated 29/08/2014 wherein the alleged incident was reported. Opposite party did not adduce any evidence. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and directed him to give the sanctioned compensation to the complainant and also awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.3,000/-. Opposite party has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
When the appeal came up for admission the Additional Govt.Pleader for the appellant was heard.
The only contention raised by the appellant is that as there was forest case pending against the complainant, the sanctioned compensation cannot be given to the complainant . As correctly observed by the Forum if there is any forest case pending against the complainant the opposite party can proceed against (3) him . But no evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite party to show that any such case is pending against the complainant or to show that if a Forest case is pending against a person the sanctioned compensation should not be disbursed to him . Therefore Forum is perfectly justified in holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that the complainant is entitled to the sanctioned compensation.
The Forum has directed the opposite party to issue the sanctioned compensation by the government to the complainant and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.3,000/-. We find no reason to interfere to the said finding of the Forum.
In the result we find no ground to admit the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Court on this the 28th January, 2016.
JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT V.V.JOSE : MEMBER Plkd/ca &sh/- Plkd,ca/-sh [HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.Q.BARKATH ALI] PRESIDENT [ SRI. V. V. JOSE] MEMBER