AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainants are the appellants. THE first complainant is the daughter of the second complainant. For the marriage of the first complainant, the second complainant applied for financial assistance from the Government under "Women Welfare Scheme" known as "Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Ninaivu Thirumana Udhavi Thittam". THE marriage was also performed on 8.9.1999. THE complainants submitted all the necessary documents before the third opposite party. THE second complainant also met the opposite parties on several times. But the opposite parties have not sanctioned the assistance and, therefore the present complaint is lodged for a direction to the opposite parties to grant necessary reliefs.
THE opposite parties have filed their objection stating that the complaint is not maintainable. THE complainants are not consumers and that the complainants applied for marriage assistance under "Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Ninaivu Thirumana Udhavi Thittam". But after careful examination of the application submitted by the complainants, the same was rejected because the 2nd complainant''s annual income exceeded the limit prescribed and, therefore, the complainant could not be granted the reliefs. The Lower Forum accepted the case of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint. Hence the present appeal.
The 2nd complainant had applied to the authorities concerned seeking financial assistance for the marriage of his daughter, the first complainant. The 2nd complainant had also enclosed necessary documents, his photograph along with his daughter and also that certificate from the concerned Village Administrative Officer/Revenue Inspector/Deputy Tahsildar about his Annual Income. No doubt, Government Order in G.O.Ms. No 132 dated 27.5.1993 issued by the Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department specifies that limit for financial assistance will stand enhanced from Rs. 6,400/- to Rs. 12,000/- per annum. It is also true from the income certificate produced by the 2nd complainant that the complainant has been receiving a pension amount of Rs. 1,210/- per month and thus his annual income is Rs. 14,520/-. This amount, no doubt, exceeds the limit specified in the above said Government Order. No doubt the complainant cannot be strictly construed as a consumer vis-a-vis the state when he sought the assistance. It is a welfare measure under scheme introduced by the Government to help the poor and needy to get financial assistance. It would come under the broad spectrum of Directive Principles of the State. The State being conscious of its obligations to the citizen especially the needy would consider it as its foremost duty to extend such financial aid to the needy and the poor persons. Therefore, when the State is extending such a benefit, it is only discharging its constitutional obligations to the citizens. When there is a needy person namely a citizen, who is in need of such financial assistance applies for such an aid, then the duty of the State is to honour its commitments and not to throw the Rule Book at him. Therefore, though strictly speaking the complainant is not a consumer, still inasmuch as the State has decided to extend benefits to the citizens, who are in need of financial assistance, in their aim to carry out the Directive Principles enshrined in the Constitution, in that context, there is duty cast upon the State to honour its commitments and grant the assistance whenever a needy person knocks at its door. In that sense and to that extent, there is a failure on the part of the Government in honouring its commitment in this case. By their letter dated 22.10.1997, they have informed that under "Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Ninaivu Thirumana Udhavi Thittam", Rajasundari, the 1st complainant/1st appellant and the daughter of the 2nd complainant/2nd appellant herein have been sanctioned the financial assistance. If really the applicant was not entitled to the relief because his income had exceeded the limit, he ought to have been informed then and there so that he would know where he stood. Instead, he was asked to produce the documents and was given a hope that he would be paid the amount and was made to wait, and at last the door was closed upon him. This is really a painful experience for the complainants. The 2nd complainant states that he is a pensioner. The G.O. does not specify whether income includes basic pension and allowances and other perquisites or it is only the basic pension that should be computed for the purpose of arriving at the annual income. The complainant who appeared in person would say that if his annual income is to be reckoned on the basis of his basic pension, if his basic pension is taken, he would qualify for the assistance under the said Government Order. In the absence of any materials from the other side with regard to that aspect, we do not propose to dwell upon it or give our conclusion on the same. But considering the broad probabilities of the case, the genuine need of the complainant, the spirit behind the issuance of the G.O. and the hallowed Directive Principles enshrined in the Constitution, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case where a generous attitude should be adopted towards the complainant. That the 2nd complainant had celebrated his daughter''s marriage is not disputed. That he should have been spent certain amounts for the marriage can also be taken note of. Though the complaint has been laid in the year 1998 and, was dismissed by the Lower Forum peremptorily on 16.12.1998, we are of the view that the principles of natural justice, equity and the cardinal rule of compassion demand that some reliefs be offered to the appellants/complainants. The Government will not be definitely poor of by our order. In the circumstances, we are of the view that considering the spirit behind the G.O., the duty of the State to protect the interest of the needy and the poor and in the background of the Directive Principles enshrined in the Constitution, there is a infraction of duty on the part of the State and that the appellants/complainants ought to have been considered compassionately or at least his petition should have been disposed of early without holding a hope to the appellants/complainants that their request would be considered favourably by the Government. In that view of the matter, we hold that the appellants/complainants will be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- in all. Therefore, in the above canvass of our discussion and findings, we deem it fit to accept the appeal and set aside the order of the Lower Forum. Consequently, this appeal will stand allowed without costs. We direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as solatium or ex gratia compensation to the appellants/complainants within two months from the date of this order. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.