MOHAN GOGOI vs MD.HABIBULLAH

THIS is an appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Dibrugarh in C.P. Case No. 18/1995 on 21.5.1998. 1. The case in brief is that respondent was the Assistant District and Sessions Judge at Dibrugarh at the relevant time. He was allotted the Government quarter at Chowkidinghe on 15.12.1994. The quarter was alleged to be in bad condition requiring immediate repairing. Immediately after occupying the quarter, the respondent wrote to the S.D.O., PWD, Dibrugarh as well as to the Executive Engineer, PWD to repair the quarter. The respondent is also alleged to have informed the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Jorhat about the requirement of repairing the quarter. But in spite of several written as well as verbal requests to the SDO, Executive Engineer, and Superintending Engineer to repair the quarter, it was not done. Having failed to get the quarter repaired, the respondent ultimately filed a complaint with the District Forum, Dibrugarh for deficiency in service and also prayed for a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for causing severe strain and mental tension due to negligence on the part of the appellant. The appellant/opposite party in its written statement stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is neither a consumer of the appellant/opposite party nor he hires/avails of any service from the appellant/opposite party for consideration within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum, after hearing both sides held that the respondent/complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, he is entitled to get compensation as prayed for. Accordingly, the District Forum directed the PWD Division, Dibrugarh to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental harassment and agony. It was further directed that the said amount of compensation shall be recovered from the salaries of the appellants/opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. The present appeal is against the order of the District Forum dated 21.5.1998.

HEARD the learned Advocates of both the parties. The respondent argues that for occupying the Government quarter allotted to him he has been paying to respondent rent by way of deduction from his monthly salary. He has, therefore, availed of service rendered by the appellant/opposite party for consideration within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant/opposite party''s failure to repair the quarter in the manner required by the respondent/complainant amounts to deficiency in service, contends the respondent. As he suffered mental agony due to negligence on the part of the appellant/opposite party, he is entitled to get compensation under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It appears that the respondent/complainant is a salaried Government servant who draws his salary every month for occupying the Government quarter allotted to him; he is paying rent to the Government by way of deduction from his monthly salary bill. The amount of rent to deducted by the respondent/complainant is fixed by the Government and the respondent/complainant is paying according to norm fixed by the Government. There is no scope of bargain as to the amount to be paid as rent by the respondent/complainant unlike other purchaser of goods from the open market.

We find that the appellant/opposite party is also a Government servant responsible for repair and maintenance of Government quarter allotted to different Government servants. The appellant is required to undertake repair/maintenance of Government quarter after following the set procedure laid down by the Government for this purpose and the appellant is not bound to go beyond this. The appellant appears to have taken steps to repair the quarter allotted to the respondent/complainant but due to certain difficulties he has not been able to carry out the repair/maintenance of the quarter in the way required by the respondent/complainant. From the record made available to us we find that there is no lack of sincerity on the part of the appellant/opposite party on this score. To us the relation between the appellant and the respondent is not like that of seller and buyer of goods or services in the market. While the respondent is required to pay rent to the Government as per the set norm fixed for this purpose by the Government, the appellant is also required to repair/maintain the Government quarter only after following the set procedure laid down for this purpose by the Government. If the appellant is unable to repair the quarter of the respondent due to certain official procedures, we feel that it will not amount to negligence and for this the appellant cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. We, are, therefore, of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i),(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

WE are, therefore, of the view that the learned District Forum erred in holding that the respondent is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i),(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum is liable to be set aside. From what we have discussed above, we find that there is merit in the appeal and accordingly we set aside the order of the learned District Forum dated 21.5.1998. However, we would not like to order any costs to the appellants. It is ordered accordingly as stated above. Appeal allowed.