SECONDARY SCHOOL vs CORRESPONDENT, MUSLIM HIGHER G.RANGANATHAN, PHYSICAL EDUCATION OFFICER

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 13.10.1998 in O.P. No. 132/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore.

THE appellant is the opposite party while the respondents are the complainants. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

The 1st complainant it appears is a Physical Instruction Teacher in a Muslim Higher Secondary School at Aayankudi of which the opposite party is the Correspondent. He, it appears, submitted an application for the sanction of a loan from his General Provident Fund Account (for short GPF A/c) maintained by the District Education Officer. The school in which he was working it appears is an aided school. The application given by the 1st complainant for getting the loan from his GPF A/c has to be routed through the school in which he was working. It is the specific case of 1st complainant that there was a considerable delay in processing the application and consequently he had suffered a lot in his not being in a position to give proper treatment to his wife. This sort of an act on the part of the opposite party, the complainants would say would tantamount to deficiency in service on their part.

IN such a backdrop and setting, the complainants knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite party in pith and substance would contend that the 1st complainant cannot at all the construed as a consumer qua the opposite party and the complaint as such is liable to be dismissed.

THE Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record however recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and consequently directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation for the monetary loss he has suffered as a consequence of the delay so caused in getting the loan amount, to pay a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and anguish suffered by him and to pay a cost of Rs. 500/-. THE Forum below issued a further direction that the award as passed by it has to be complied with within a period of two months from the date of its order. Aggrieved by the order as above, the opposite party resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice namely learned Counsel Mr. S. Devika. On service of process, the 1st respondent/1st complainant engaged a Counsel of his choice namely learned Counsel Mr. P.S. Prakasam. The 2nd respondent/2nd complainant remained absent. When this matter came up for hearing before us today, learned Counsel Mr. P.S. Prakasam appearing for the 1st respondent/1st complainant is called absent and no representation is made on his behalf. We are however inclined to dispose of the appeal on merits of course after hearing the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. S. Devika appearing for the appellant/opposite party and on perusal of the materials placed on record.

EVEN at the outset, we may point out that the Forum below committed a grievous error of law in recording a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The initial error made it to commit the further error of granting of compensation for monetary loss and compensation for mental agony and anguish besides cost. We are of the view that if the Forum below had perceived the facts in the proper perspective, it won''t have committed such a serious error. Admittedly, the opposite party is a Correspondent working in an aided Muslim School at Aayankudi. Yet another fact about which there is no dispute is that the 1st complainant G.Ranganathan is Physical Instruction Teacher in the school of the opposite party. The igniting cause for the 1st complainant to launch a complaint against the opposite party is that the opposite party delayed the processing of his application given to the school for obtaining loan from his GPF A/c maintained by the District Education Officer. Such being the case, we are at a loss to understand as to how the 1st complainant could ever be construed as a consumer qua the opposite party in the sense of availing or hiring the services of the opposite party for consideration. The Forum below allowed the parties to place on record mass of irrelevant materials not at all having any bearing with a question to be decided in the case on hand. This apart, the Forum below did not at all apply its mind to the legal question as to whether the 1st complainant could ever be construed as a consumer qua the opposite party. It is the absence of application of mind of the Forum below on such a legal question, the Forum below treaded on the wrong path and penned down the erroneous order which cannot at all be allowed to stand as it is. The appeal as such deserves to be allowed.

IN fine, the appeal is allowed; the order of the Forum below is set aside and the complaint itself is dismissed. We however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal allowed.