By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party does not providing service to the complainant, not executing the Panchayat Board decisions, not replying the applications under Information Act and ignoring the government orders. The complainant alleges he presented an application for certificate copy on 13/11/2018 as A3 - 9606/18 and on 21/11/2018 he approached the opposite party for the document but it was not allowed. The complainant sought details of the legal fee towards the cases C.C.189/2016, E.A.187/16, CC.138/2018 before the C D R F Malappuram. The reply was Rs.4,500/- which is not correct according to the complainant. The complainant on 23/11/2018 filed an application for certified copy and approached on 30/11/2018 for the same but it was denied. On 01/12/2018 the reply was to file an application under Information Act which according to complainant is against Panchayat Raj Act. The complainant filed a complaint before the Panchayat on 26/06/2018 as A3 - 4658/18 against acceptance of a quotation by an establishment which is not in existence and there was decision to issue notice to one Bava Sarafudheen and thereafter a complaint was filed before the D.D.P and on that an enquiry was conducted and found the allegation as correct and also 15 secretaries of Grama Panchayat were directed to file report on the allegation. As per decision in C.C.N0.138/2018 there was direction to the opposite party to hear and examine the documents and to take appropriate decisions on complaint by the opposite party. The opposite party refused to issue BPL certificate to one Ajini, W/o Subramanian while the complainant approached the opposite party with authorization letter. The same was repeated by the opposite party while the complainant approached for a BPL certificate in respect of Fathima Suhara, daughter of Kader not only that the secretary threatened the said lady over telephone. The complainant approached for BPL certificate in respect of Fathima Suhara, then the opposite party directed to appear in person. In case of Ajini also it was the direction of the opposite party to appear in person to receive the BPL certificate. The complainant had filed complaint against the mis conduct of the opposite party before the concerned authorities. The complainant while approached for certificate with the authorization, refused the opposite party and directed to submit before the front office. The complainant submits the arrogant, indecent attitude of the opposite party. The opposite party had threatened the complainant Infront of the Panchayat President. The complainant alleges non supply of information as per Information Act is also a deficiency in service and the act of the opposite party warrants penal action. Hence the prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite party to act on applications properly submitted before the opposite party and also take action against the indecent behavior of opposite party along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.
2. On receipt of notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant since the opposite party did not act in favor of the complainant and complainant was in inimical terms with the opposite party and so this complainant filed this complaint with malicious intention. There is no merit at all in the complaint, not legally sustainable and the complainant warrants penal action. The opposite party alleges the complainant teasing the opposite party for the last two years. She is working in good faith and so there may be a direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the opposite party.
3. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A 1 to A 32. Documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B4. Ext. A1 is copy of application submitted before opposite party dated 13/11/2018. Ext. A2 Copy of application under Information Act submitted before DDP by the complainant dated 26/10/2018. Ext. A3 is reply sent by opposite party to the complainant under Information Act. Ext. A4 copy of application for certified copy dated 23/11/2018. Ext. A5 is copy of notice denied the documents issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 28/11/2018. Ext. A6 is copy of application of the complainant before grama panchayat Ext. A7 copy of decision of grama Panchayat dated 21/07/2018. Ext. A8 copy of letter issued by DDP to the secretaries of grama Panchayat dated 12/11/2018. EXT. A9 Copy of order in C.C.138/2018 OF CDRF, Malappuram dated 04/09/2018. Ext. A10 Copy of application filed by Ajini before opposite party dated 14/11/2018. Ext. A11 is copy of application by Fathima Suhara before opposite party dated 14/11/2018 EXT. A12 copy of application by Fathima Suhara before opposite party dated 23/11/2018. Ext. A13 notice issued by Fathima Suhara to the opposite party dated 24/11/2018. Ext. A14 Copy of application filed by Ajini before opposite party dated23/11/2018. Ext. A15 notice issued by Ajini to the opposite party dated 24/11/2018. Ext. A16 copy of application submitted before DDP by the complainant under Right to service Act dated 29/11/2018. Ext. A17 authorization letter of Fathima Suhara issued to opposite party. Ext. A18 authorization letter of Ajini issued to opposite party. Ext. A19 copy of complaint registered in complaint book of panchayat dated 21/11/2018. Ext. A20 copy of complaint registered in complaint book of panchayat dated 30/11/2018. Ext A.21 copy of application of the complainant to execute court order dated 29/10/2018. Ext.A22 copy of reply of the opposite party dated 30/10/2018. Ext. A23 copy of notice issued by opposite party to the complainant dated 06/02/2019. Ext. A24 is copy of application of the complainant to the opposite party to allow number Ext.A25 copy of order in OS 202/88 dated 22/02/2019. Ext. A26 is copy of application from the complainant to the opposite party dated 11/10/2019. Ext. A27 is copy of reply of the opposite party to the complainant dated 21/10/2019. Ext. A28 is copy of counter of the opposite party filed before CDRF dated 24/10/2018. Ext. A29 is copy of application under Information Act by complainant before opposite party. Ext. 30 copy of reply by the opposite party to the complainant dated 23/11/2019. Ext. A31 is notice of the complainant to the opposite party 30/11/2019. Ext.A32 is notice to complainant by the opposite party on 12/12/2019. Ext. B1 is copy of reply issued by opposite party to the complainant dated 28/11/2018. Ext. B2 is copy of letter issued by DDP to secretaries of grama panchayat dated 12/11/2018. Ext. B3 is copy of information given by the opposite party to the complainant under Information Act on 19/11/2018. Ext. B4 is copy of decision taken by the grama panchayat dated 18/09/2018.
4. Heard complainant and opposite party, perused the affidavit and documents.
The grievance of the complainant has described brief in first para – B as follows: -
“ഈ കേസിനാസ്പദമായ വ്യവഹാര കാരണം എതിര്കക്ഷി , പരാതിക്കാരനും മറ്റും നല്കുന്ന അപേക്ഷകള്ക്ക് സേവനങ്ങള് നല്കാത്തതിനാലും, പഞ്ചായത്ത് കമ്മിറ്റി തീരുമാനം നടപ്പിലാക്കാത്തതിനാലും , വിവരാവകാശ അപേക്ഷക്ക് വ്യക്തമായ മറുപടി നല്കാത്തതിനാലും, സര്ക്കാര് ഉത്തരവുകള് മാനിക്കാത്തതിനാലുമാണ് . എതിര്കക്ഷി യുടെ മേല് വിവരിച്ച പ്രവര്ത്തികള് നിരുത്തരവാദവും , അലംഭാവം, നിയമവിരുദ്ധവും , കുറ്റകരവുമാണ് . എതിര്കക്ഷികളുടെ ഭാഗത്ത് നിന്നുണ്ടായ സേവനത്തില് വന്ന ഗുരുതരമായ വീഴ്ച യുമാണ്”. It can be seen from this paragraph itself the grievance of the complainant is not a specific one. The complaint is filed not only to redress his grievance but also to redress the grievance of similar complainants. He has stated that the opposite party is not providing proper service, not executing board decision of the grama panchayat, not providing correct information under the Information Act, not considering the government orders but acting against law which is punishable. The complainant narrated number of incidences of personal experience as well as experience of some other intimate persons of the complainant. Complainant submitted that he had submitted various complaints before this Commission itself and there were orders in his favor also. He claims that he is a whistle bowler on social issues and he is not affiliated with any particular political movement. He is agitating to find out solutions for the social issues as volunteer of information movement as well as consumer movement even though he is physically disabled and doing all the work with dedication to the society.
5. It can be seen from the complaint that he has raised several issues before the opposite party. He produced documents A1 to A32 to establish the same but as per the Consumer Protection Act there is no provision to issue an order in a matter of present complaint like issues. The complainant has got grievance against the attitude and approach of the opposite party which is to be legally restrained. In this regard there is considerable limitations in the act of Consumer Protection.
6. The Commission has gone through the affidavit of the opposite party in detail. The averment in the affidavit of the opposite party is that the complainant was in an inimical term with the opposite party. The opposite party affirmed that there was an issue in between the complainant and his brother regarding a property and in which the opposite party did not provide assistance to the complainant. The opposite party also submitted that BPL certificates cannot be issued to any person when there is doubt regarding the genuineness of the claim. The opposite party submitted that there was no willful neglect to the complainant. But at the same time the complainant was harassing the opposite party on various reasons. The opposite party do not limit the submission to that extend but she submits that the complainant was in support of paying bribe, complainant is antisocial and liable to compensate the opposite party.
7. It is to be noted that the opposite party is a government servant and she is legally bound to comply statutory requirements which includes issuance of ddocuments and also information. The opposite party is expected to act in responsible manner abiding code of conduct. If at all the contention of the opposite party is correct itself which does not allow the opposite party to describe complainant as anti-social and to be punished. The opposite party contented that the complainant was in support of issuing bribe. The opposite party has not produced any document to establish her contention as stated. The Commission finds that the wordings of the opposite party in the affidavit are beyond all the limits of a government servant, it is irresponsible and also establish the allegations regarding the attitude of the opposite party in the complaint.
8. Considering the entire aspects in this complaint we find that the complainant could not establish a specific cause of action to issue an order under the Consumer Protection Act. The grievance of the complainant narrated arise on various occasions. The commission is not expected to issue an order considering the series of incidents which require examination of various aspects of particular issues individually. Some of grievance are to be addressed by different authorities also. The prayer of the complainant is to give direction to opposite party to act properly on duly submitted applications is not warranted since the opposite party is bound to act otherwise. We also restraining from passing an order on allegation of indecent behavior of opposite party. Considering the entire aspect, we cannot allow the prayer in the complaint and so this complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 13th day of January, 2022.
