MOHAN GOGOI Vs. MD HABIBULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Sec.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 Sec.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.

(2.) 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 Sec.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 .

(3.) 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.