Smt. Y.Yasodhamma & Ors.                       ----   Petitioners
                 Vs.
The Supdt. of Prohibition & Excise               ----  Respondent

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, President, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member.

Per Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member

        This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner Smt. Yasodamma and others against the order of the State Commission setting aside the order of District Forum, which had allowed the complaint.

        Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner's husband was a licensed Toddy tapper, who while tapping toddy on 16.3.98 fell from the Toddy tree, sustained injuries and died on way to the main hospital at Guntur. There is a welfare scheme of the Government of Andhra Pradesh which envisages grant of Ex-Gratia payment of up to Rs. 50,000/- to the heirs of the deceased in case of death in such circumstances. The Complainant having approached the Competent Authority, i.e., the Respondents and not getting any satisfactory reply filed a case of deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. The District Forum after hearing both the parties directed payment of Rs. 50,000/- of Ex-Gratia amount under the scheme along with interest @ 12% from 18.9.98 till the date of payment and cost of Rs. 400/-. Respondent filed an appeal against this order before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties set aside the order of the District Forum, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Complainant is not a consumer as he has not hired the services of the opposite party on any consideration.

      It was argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Ms. Kavita Saini, an amicus curiae appointed by us, that there is no dispute that the deceased was a licensed toddy tapper. The licence fee was a consideration by virtue of which he hired the services of the opposite party. The Petitioners cannot be non-suited on the ground that they are not consumers. Fee is different from Tax. Fee involves quid-pro-quo - the tax does not, hence the State Commission erred in interpreting the definition of the Consumer. Order of the District Forum is correct and need to be restored. 'Respondent in spite of notice remained absent, hence proceeded ex-parte'.

        We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. There is no denying the fact that the deceased was a licensed toddy tapper - licence was obtained after paying for licence. Licence Fee was paid to get a licence to tap toddy from Government trees and sell it to earn his livelihood. Licence Fee gave him authorisation to tap the toddy and no more. It is true that the Welfare Scheme uses the word Ex-Gratia payment in case of death of a toddy tapper. It is no one's case that there is no linkage between the two. Ex-Gratia payment is not made to an unlicensed tapper. Nexus is clear to us.

        Consumer Protection Act is a Social Welfare Legislation. Section 2 of the Act states 'unless the context otherwise requires'. In M.Subramania Iyer vs. Official Receiver, Quilon AIR 1998 SCI, Hon'ble Supreme Court held;

       "The expression 'unless the context otherwise requires' in section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 implies that the definitions of various words and expressions given in this section should be followed generally; but if the context otherwise requires then the interpreter has the discretion to adopt such other meaning of the particular word or expression which is in harmony with the context of the expression and for this purpose sufficient flexibility is provided by the insertion of these words. The General Clauses Act is enacted in order to shorten language used in parliamentary legislation and to avoid repetition of the same words in the course of the each piece of legislation. Such a Act is not meant to give a hide-bound meaning to terms and phrases generally occurring in legislations. That is the reason why the definition section contains the words like 'unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context'."

        In Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787, Hon'ble Supreme Court stated;

       "The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act thus have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. The primary duty of the court while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach, subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary to attempted objective of the enactment."

       In view of above we would like to take a liberal view of the word 'Services' - in this case rendered by the State Government. It could not be the objective of the Scheme to defeat it for the very people for whose welfare it was enacted. We see that the Respondents did not render the Ex-Gratia payment on mere technicalities. The factum of his fall, that being the cause of his death, and the details of his heirs were made available, duly supported by the village authorities. Assistance could not be refused just because it was not supported by document from Doctor of a Government Hospital about the injuries. The facts clearly bring out that the deceased died on his way to the Government Hospital, Guntur. Had he reached Guntur in the same shape, this formality would have also been completed but unfortunately he could not make it to the Government Hospital. The Guidelines on the subject are pro- consumer/beneficiary. Opposite Party instead of finding gaps in the documentation should have collected evidence from the hospital where he was first taken. The other deficiency on the part of the Complainant relate to non-furnishing FIR and Post Mortem report. Procedure to be followed by the Respondent in such case is as per instructions in the subject dated 13.11.87. There is not a word about any Post Mortem Report by this instructions; about FIR it states that Excise Superintendent should obtain it through his subordinates.

         In the light of above discussions, we are clearly of the view that Respondents have been deficient in rendering the service to the Petitioners. In our view the State Commission erred in not fully appreciating the facts of this case in the context of the spirit of the Consumer Protection Act as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The order of the State Commission is set aside, and the order of the District Forum is restored. The payment shall be made within eight weeks of the order. No order on costs.