Om Prakash Yadav vs DEPOT MANAGAR, U.P. RAJYA KARMACHARI KALYAN NIGAM

THESE are two appeals one in No. 1490/92 presented by Om Prakash Yadav and the other one is No. 1496/ S.C./92 presented by U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam, Branch Collectorate, Azamgarh both against the order dated 24.11.1992 passed by District Forum, Azamgarh in Complaint Case No. 99/92. The complainant-appellant Om Prakash in his appeal has challenged the order under appeal stating therein that the District Forum has awarded inadequate compensation while in the Memo of Appeal the appeal presented on behalf of the Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam the grounds taken are that the District Forum has acted beyond its jurisdiction in awarding excessive award of compensation of Rs. 2,000/-little realising that the U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam has been doing the business on ''no loss no profit basis'' for the welfare of the Government officials and that the complainant is not a consumer as the service rendered by it was without any consideration.

WE have heard Sharad Tewari, Advocate on behalf of the U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam and Mr. Panna Lal, Advocate on behalf of the complainant on 11.2.1987 while the President of the State Commission was away out of country and the orders were reserved to be pronounced later on. Admitted facts of both the parties are that Om Prakash, complainant has booked a Majestic Moped on 12.9.1988 depositing Rs. 5,000/-and Rs. 25/-as booking fee with the U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam, Azamgarh on the assurance that the Moped would be supplied within 30 days and in spite of repeated contacts and requests he was given a cheque of Rs. 5,000/-alongwith an authority letter dated 12.9.1988 by the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam Depot to be handed over to Messrs Eastern Distributors/Azamgarh to take the delivery of the Moped but it was informed by the said distributor that there was no amount in the Bank according to the cheque and therefore he went back to the Nigam office where the cheque and the authority letter were got back. Thereafter on repeated contacts he was neither supplied the Moped nor the amount was refunded on which he had to spend Rs. 4,000/-and hence the complaint was filed before the District Forum for refund of the amount and the compensation of Rs. 4,000/-. On receipt of the notice it was contended on behalf of the U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam that the complainant did not return the authority letter and the cheque honoured which was presented to the supplier of the Moped but later on it came to its notice that the complainant had purchased on 4.1.1989 a Moped from Messrs Eastern Distributors. In replication, the complainant Om Prakash has re iterated his stand and stated that when he was not supplied the Moped through the U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam, he was compelled to purchase a Moped on 1.3.1990 for Rs. 5,900/-on which he has to spend more than what was supposed to be spent through the U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam.

Having considered the case of both the parties the District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam to refund Rs. 5,000/-deposited by the complainant Om Prakash and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 100/-as cost of the proceedings and in failure of payment of these amounts within the time allowed an additional interest of 15% per annum to be paid to the complainant till the aforesaid amounts are paid. Having been aggrieved by this order it was asserted on behalf of the complainant that the compensation of Rs. 2,000/-is inadequate while he had to spend Rs. 4,000/-. There is no evidence regarding the quantification of the compensation filed by the complainant and, therefore, the District Forum has rightly awarded Rs. 2,000/-as compensation which, in our opinion, is adequate in the absence of any material produced by the complainant. Therefore, we do not find any force in the appeal regarding the quantum of the compensation.

AS regards the appeal moved on behalf of U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam, its learned Counsel Sri Sharad Tewari has pressed on two points stating that it is not a consumer case because the U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam rendered the service to the complainant without charging any consideration and secondly that the U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam does the business for the welfare of the Government officials on the basis of ''no loss no profit''. As regards the plea of doing the business for the welfare of the Government officials on ''no loss no profit basis'' it makes no difference since the Nigam has charged Rs. 25/-as booking fee alongwith the cost of the Moped Rs.5,000/-and, therefore, it cannot be a case of the U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam that it had rendered the service to the complainant without charging any consideration. Consideration may be less or more but the facts remained that it had charged Rs. 25/-as consideration for its service to be rendered to the complainant regarding the facility of supplying of the Moped through it. Therefore/ the services rendered by the U.P. Karmachari Kalyan Nigam is covered under Section 2(1)(o) read with Section 2(1)(d)(ii) and hence the case of the complainant is covered under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 2(1)(o) and the plea raised on behalf of the U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam that the case of the complainant is not a consumer case has no force.

IN view of the above the appeal of the U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam has no force and consequently is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above finding we dismiss both the appeals but leave the parties to bear their own costs. Original order shall form part of Appeal No. 1490/-S.C./92 and its copy shall be placed on Appeal No. 1496/S.C./92.

LET a copy of the order be made available to both the parties within two weeks positively under rules. Appeals dismissed.