Secretary, Moonniyur Grama Panchayat and Village Extension Officer, Moonniyur Grama Panchayat v K. Chandran S/o Karunakaran Nair and The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.`** ## **`MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1945`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 1899 OF 2017`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - `1 SECRETARY, MOONNIYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH VELIMUKKU SOUTH PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676 317.` - `2 THE VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER MOONNIYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,VELIMUKKU SOUTH PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676 317.` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.R.RAMADAS SRI.T.SIVADASAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1`** `K.CHANDRAN S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, KOLAPURATH HOUSE, KUNNATH PARAMBU, MOONNIYUR SOUTH PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676 317.` - **`2`** `THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR BY ADV SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN SRI BINOY DAVIS, GP` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 1899 OF 2017 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The Secretary, Moonniyur Grama Panchayat and the Village Extension Officer, Munniyur Grama Panchayat have filed this writ petition, seeking to quash Exts.P7 order of the of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (in C.C. No.376/2015) and Ext.P9 judgment of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in appeal No.730/2016), dismissing an appeal filed against Ext.P7 order. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- On 20.07.2013, through G.O(MS) No.59/2013, the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Kerala had introduced a Scheme for grant of old age pension to all eligible persons, who have completed 60 years of age and whose annual income is less than Rs.3 lakhs, as part of implementation of Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme introduced by the Government of India. In a camp conduced by the Panchayat for identifying beneficiaries under the Scheme, 1447 applications were received. The application of the 1[st] respondent was also one among the applications. ``` WP(C) NO. 1899 OF 2017 3 ``` Based on the information available in the application and on the basis of the Government orders then in force, the Executive Committee of the Panchayat resolved that the 1[st] respondent was entitled to old age pension and the 1[st] respondent was required to furnish certain documents for the purposes of processing his claim. According to the petitioners, the 1[st] respondent had failed to produce the documents called for, as a result of which, there was a delay in processing the claim for payment of pension to the 1[st] respondent. In the meantime, there were some modifications to the Scheme for grant of old age pension, the details of which are not necessary to be gone into for the purposes of this case. According to the 1[st] respondent, being aggrieved by the delay in processing of his application and the payment of old age pension, he filed complaints before the Chief Minister’s Grievance Cell and also approached the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Tirurangadi. The 1[st] respondent also produced an annual income certificate dated 22.06.2015, issued by the Village Officer, Moonniyur before the Taluk Legal Services Authority to substantiate that he was entitled to pension in terms of the Government Scheme. By Ext.P3 award in a Lok ``` WP(C) NO. 1899 OF 2017 4 ``` Adalat conducted by the High Court Legal Services Committee, the issue was settled and the Panchayat agreed to take steps to sanction pension to the 1[st] respondent at the earliest, that too, with effect from the date of his application. The 1[st] respondent, thereafter, approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum), alleging that there was deficiency in service and the Panchayat was liable to compensate the 1[st] respondent for the delay in sanctioning the pension. The District Forum, by Ext.P7 order dated 31.08.2016, awarded a total amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the 1[st] respondent, in the following manner:- ‘’ The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10000/to the complainant as compensation for the delay in sanctioning the claim of the complainant. Rs.10000/- for the mental agony and hardships he suffered. He is entitled for the cost of Rs.5000 also. Opposite parties are directed to make the payment within 30 days of the receipt of the order’’ An appeal filed by the petitioners before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) was dismissed by Ext.P9 order. ``` WP(C) NO. 1899 OF 2017 5 ``` 3. Sri. T Sivadasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the order issued by the District Forum and the order of the State Commission, rejecting the appeal filed, challenging Ext.P7 order, are illegal and unsustainable in law. Firstly, he submits that, there has been absolutely no delay in processing the claim of the 1[st] respondent for pension. It is submitted that the application of the 1[st] respondent for pension was made in the month of December, 2013 and it was sanctioned by the Panchayat without any delay, whatsoever. It is submitted that the 1[st] respondent was thereafter issued with Ext.R1(a) communication, requiring him to produce certain documents. It is submitted that, owing to the delay on the part of the 1[st] respondent in producing the necessary documents, his claim for old age pension could not be processed and the Panchayat cannot be found fault with for the same. Secondly, it is submitted that, when a matter is taken before the Legal Services Authority and is settled before that authority, the 1[st] respondent cannot, thereafter claim any amount as compensation before any other authority, including the authorities constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. ``` WP(C) NO. 1899 OF 2017 6 ``` Reliance is placed in support of this contention on the judgment of the Supreme Court in **P T. Thomas V. Thomas Job [(2005) 6 SCC 478].** It is submitted that, the petitioners are entitled to maintain this writ petition before this Court in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in **Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd V. State of Bihar [2021 (5)** **KLT 667 (SC)],** since the order issued by the Authorites under the Consumer Protection Act are without jurisdiction. It is pointed out that the 1[st] respondent has been granted pension with effect from the date of his application and there cannot be any case that the 1[st] respondent suffered any prejudice or loss on account of any act of the Panchayat or its officials. 4. Sri. K V. Harisankar, learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent would vehemently contend that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court, challenging orders of the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act. It is submitted that, the Division Bench of this Court in **Regional Cancer Center, Tvm V. Kerala State Consumer Dispute Rederssal Commission, Tvm [2021 (5) KHC 236],** had categorically held that when an effective alternative remedy is ``` WP(C) NO. 1899 OF 2017 7 ``` provided under the Consumer Protection Act, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the order of the State Commission, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against Ext.P7 order of the District Forum. It is submitted that the 1[st] respondent had suffered on account of the fact that there was delay on the part of the authorities in processing his claim for pension and this clearly constitutes a cause of action for the 1[st] respondent to approach the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act as there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the Panchayat and its officials. It is pointed out that, immediately on receipt of Ext.R1(a), the 1[st] respondent had produced all documents sought for, before the local ward member as required in Ext.R1(a) and the Panchayat cannot be heard to contend that the delay occurred only on account of the fact that the 1[st] respondent had failed to produce the necessary documents as requested for in Ext.R1(a). 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. It is true that, when an effective alternative remedy ``` WP(C) NO. 1899 OF 2017 8 ``` is available, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not venture to examine the legality or correctness of any order against which such alternative remedy can be availed. However, there are two well recognized exceptions to the above rule. The first exception is, violation of natural justice. The second exemption is, where the authorities, whose orders are impugned, have acted without jurisdiction. This is a case where the 1[st] respondent had, being aggrieved by the failure on the part of the Panchayat in processing his claim for old age pension, approached the Taluk Legal Services Committee by preferring a complaint. The issues between the petitioners and the 1[st] respondent have been settled in a Lok Adalat and the 1[st] respondent has been sanctioned pension on the basis of such settlement, from the date of his application. The Supreme Court, in **P T. Thomas (supra),** had occasion to consider the consequences of award of a Lok Adalat. It was held as follows:- ‘’Award of Lok Adalat shall be final :- 21.The Lok Adalat will pass the award with the consent of the parties, therefore there is no need either to reconsider or review the matter again and again, as the award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be final. Even as under Section 96 (3) of C.P.C. that "no appeal shall lie from ``` WP(C) NO. 1899 OF 2017 9 ``` a decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties". The award of the Lok Adalat is an order by the Lok Adalat under the consent of the parties, and it shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court, therefore an appeal shall not lie from the award of the Lok Adalat as under Section 96(3) C.P.C. 23.The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that, in Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam V. Presiding Officer, Permanent Lok Adalat-cum-Secy., District Legal Services Authority, [(2000) 5 An LT 577], " the award is enforceable as a decree and it is final.On all fours, the endeavour is only to see that the disputes are narrowed down and make the final settlement so that the parties are not again driven to further litigation or any dispute. Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest on merits just as a regular suit by a Court in a regular trial, is, however, it is as equal and on a par with a decree on compromise and will have the same binding effect and be conclusive. Just as the decree passed on the compromise cannot be challenged in a regular appeal, the award of the Lok Adalat, being akin to the same, cannot be challenged by any of the regular remedies available under law, including by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution and challenging the correctness of the award, on any ground. Judicial review cannot be invoked in such awards especially on the grounds as were raised in the revision petition. 24.The award of Lok Adalat is final and permanent which is equivalent to a decree executable, and the same is an ending to the litigation among parties. 25. In Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo V. The State of Orissa [AIR 1956 SC 346], the Constitution Bench held as follows: A Judgment by consent or default is as effective an estoppel between the parties as a judgment whereby the court exercises its mind on a contested case. [South American and Mexican Co., ex. p Bank of England, In re [(1895) 1 Ch 37] & Kinch V. Walcottt [1929 AC 482 ] ‘’In South American and Mexican Co., ex. p Bank of England, In re [(1895) 1 Ch 37], it has been held that a judgment by consent or default is as effective an estoppel between the parties as a judgment whereby the Court exercises its mind on a contested case. Upholding the judgment of Vaughan Williams,J Lord Herschell said (Ch p 50):- ``` WP(C) NO. 1899 OF 2017 10 ``` "The truth is, a judgment by consent is intended to put a stop to litigation between the parties just as much as is a judgment which results from the decision of the Court after the matter has been fought out to the end. And I think it would be very mischievous if one were not to give a fair and reasonable interpretation to such judgments, and were to allow questions that were really involved in the action to be fought over again in a subsequent action." To the like effect are the following observations of the Judicial Committee in 'Kinch v. Walvott', 1929 AC 482 (AC at p.493):- "First of all their Lordships are clear that in relation to this plea of estoppel it is of no advantage to the appellant that the order in the libel action which is said to raise it was a consent order. For such a purpose an order by consent , not discharged by mutual agreement, and remaining unreduced , is as effective as an order of the Court made otherwise than by consent and not discharged on appeal." If the law laid down in **P T. Thomas (supra)** is applied to the facts of this case, it must be held that the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act had no jurisdiction to determine any issue between the petitioners and the 1[st] respondent after the issues between them culminated in Ext.P3 award of the Lok Adalat. In **Mahatma Gandhi University V. Dr. Thara K. Simon and Others** (Order in R P No.503 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021), a Division Bench of this Court, to which I was also a party, observed as follows:- ‘’We are, at this juncture, reminded of the following passage in the opinion of P.T.Raman Nair C.J speaking for the Full Bench of this Court in **M.P. Raghavan Nair v. State Insurance Officer, AIR 1971 Ker 175** : - “The principles are principles of repose and peace. ``` WP(C) NO. 1899 OF 2017 11 ``` “Long dormant claims have often more of cruelty than of justice in them,” said Best, C.J. in A Court v. Cross, (1825) 130 ER 540. And so, we might add, has the fighting of the same legal battle over again with the same adversary, or, once a wrong has been suffered, the fighting of the battle for redress piecemeal. ” (Emphasis is ours)………….. **“Interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium”** - it is in the interest of the republic that there is a conclusion of litigation. These proceedings are no exception to that rule.’’ This principle is clearly applicable to the facts of this case as well. After settlement of issues in the Lok Adalath, no other forum could have been approached to claim any compensation on account of the alleged delay in procuring a claim that was subject matter of the award of the Lok Adalat. The petitioners have clearly pleaded that the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act had no jurisdiction to consider any issue between the petitioners and the 1[st] respondent, after disposal of the matter by the Lok Adalat, in terms of the provisions contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act. Thus, even if I were to hold that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner against Ext.P9 judgment of the State Commission, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was clearly maintainable. [See the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ``` WP(C) NO. 1899 OF 2017 12 ``` **Calcutta Discount Co.Ltd V. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta [1961 KHC 516].** That apart, even on the facts of the case, as noticed above,I am unable to find that there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the authorities of the Panchayat in processing the claim of the 1[st] respondent for pension. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and Exts.P7 and P9 orders are quashed. ``` Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE ``` ajt ``` WP(C) NO. 1899 OF 2017 13 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1899/2017`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1 :TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.52/2014 DATED 20-6- 2014 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. P2 :TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4-7-2015 FROM THETALUKLEGALSERVICECOMMITTEE, TIRURANGADI. P3 :TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 22-7-2015. P4 :TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT SLIP GENERATED THROUGH COMPUTER IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 5-8-2015. P5 :TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT CC NO.376/2015 DATED 17-09-2015 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALAPPURAM. P6 :TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM. P7 :TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-8-2016 IN CC NO.376/2015 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM, MALAPPURAM. P8 :TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.730/2016 BEFORE THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN. P9 :TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-11-2016 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS R1(a)A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 1ST PETITIONER ```