DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER vs SARANGADHAR RAUT

THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Forum, Dhenkanal in C.D. Case No. 109 of 1994. The opposite party in the said case is the appellant. The present respondent as complainant filed the aforesaid case before the District Forum challenging that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the present appellant and prayed for various directions to be issued against him including the relief of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for his mental agony and harassment.

THE facts relevant for the purpose of this case are that he is an employee of the Forest Department working as a Forest Guard under the control of the Divisional Forest Officer who has been arrayed as opposite party. He was allotted a quarter at the Forest colony near Range Office, Dhenkanal. He was transferred to Meramundali Forest Beat under Dhenkanal Division and accordingly he joined at Meramundali on 17.6.92. On 25.8.92 he received a letter from the A.C.F. Dhenkanal Range for vacating the house occupied by him. According to the complainant, he had domestic difficulties for immediately vacating the house because of his handicapped daughter and school going children. He could not vacate the quarter as a consequence of which on the direction of the opposite party a sum of Rs. 400/- is being deducted from his salary per month with effect from the month of September, 1992 till vacation of the quarter. He prayed before the District Forum to direct the opposite party not to evict him from the quarter and not to deduct Rs. 400/- per month at a flat rate but to take rent at the rate permissible under the rules. He has claimed for a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- as aforesaid. The present appellant filed a show cause stating that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. The allotment of a Government quarter is not disputed by the present appellant. But it has been stated that he was transferred to Meramundali on 1.6.92. Referring to Government Servants'' Service Rules it was stated by the present appellant that the complainant was to retain the official quarter after transfer only for two months and for that reason he was allowed to stay in that quarter for two months after he was transferred. He was required to vacate the quarter as per the rules, but since he did not do so, it was decided that he was to pay a flat rate of rent of Rs. 400/- per month and no illegality had been committed.

The District Forum after considering the case of both parties and referring to the rules governing the area, came to a conclusion that the direction to deduct Rs. 400/- from his salary per month was not proper and legal and referring to a decision of the National Commission that the residential accommodation to a Government servant is a service held, that the present appellant is guilty of deficiency in service. In the conclusion it was said that the complainant was liable to pay Rs. 60 /- per month which was for his unauthorised occupation of his eviction. It was also directed that the excess money realised from him should be refunded to him. The District Forum did not allow any compensation in favour of the complainant. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, the present appellant has filed the appeal.

AT the inception when the appeal was taken up for hearing, we wanted to be satisfied as to whether the complainant-respondent is a consumer as defined in the Act and whether the dispute presented by him was entertainable by the District Forum. The learned Counsel who appears for the complainant-respondent contended that the complainant is a consumer being the occupier of a Government quarter as decided by this Commission in a decision reported in 1993 (76) CON.LT (OSC) 23 (Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R & B) Division, Bhadrak v. Bijay Ketan Mohanty). He referred to a passage in the said judgment where this Commission observed that a residential accommodation is a facility of lodging provided, since complainant in that case was to pay for the same. Referring to the said observation of the Commission, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the complainant was occupying a Government quarter on payment of rent and, therefore, it amounts to providing accommodation on payment of consideration for which reason it is a service within the definition given in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. In the present case, we are not examining the correctness of the analysis made by this Commission in the said case. We, however, have reservations in accepting the analysis made in the said case for universal application. Even accepting the principle enunciated in the said case, the complainant ultimately cannot be said to be occupying the Government quarter on payment of rent. The reason is that he was allotted a quarter being an employee of the Government and on payment of rent he was entitled to occupy the house till the date of his transfer. By certain rules he was permitted to occupy the quarter for two months after the date of his transfer. After the termination of the extended period of two months, his occupation in the quarter becomes unauthorised. In other words, the allotment of quarter which was initially made in his favour stands cancelled and therefore his continuance in the said quarter would be equivalent to that of a trespasser. What will be the financial liability for continuing the occupation of the quarter is a matter not within the purview of the Commission or the Forum. We are not expressing any opinion whatsoever as to whether the amount payable by the complainant for continuing his occupation is proper or improper, supported by rules or otherwise. We are merely concerned with the jurisdiction of the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. We are of the firm opinion that a Forum constituted under the Act is not possessed of his jurisdiction to determine what would be the fair rent or rent approved by law or the amount to be realised for unauthorised occupation in respect of a residential accommodation belonging to the Government or to a private owner. In this view of the matter, the complaint in that behalf before the District Forum was not entertainable and any order passed by the District Forum on such complaint would be without jurisdiction. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal. Mr. Biswanath Rath, Member-I agree. Mrs. Mrinalini Padhi, Member-I agree. Appeal allowed.