ORDER Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, President—The respondent filed Complaint No. CTA/DF/ 55 of 2000 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chitradurga, Karnataka contending that the petitioner Corporation is constituted to uplift the SC/ST persons by providing financial facilities so that they can do some business for their livelihood. On the application of the complainant and on the recommendation of the District Manager, Karnataka SC/ST Development Corporation, opposite party No. 1, sanctioned a loan on 16.5.1998 for purchase of Diesel Auto Passenger vehicle. The complainant deposited Rs. 9,000 as margin money by a demand draft (D.D.) on 20.7.1998. On 30th July, 1998 the complainant mortgaged his house belonging to his father as security for the loan. 2. Petitioner obtained quotation for the said vehicle from the dealer, who was opposite party No. 3 before the District Forum. As the vehicle in question was not delivered even after repeated reminders and visits, the complainant vide his letters dated 17.5.1999 and 23.9.1999 requested the opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund the margin money and discharge the mortgage deed. As the opposite parties paid no heed to his requests he had approached to the District Forum praying for directions to the opposite parties : (i) to refund the margin money of Rs. 9,000; (ii) payment of Rs. 5,000 towards travelling expenses; (iii) reimburse Rs. 5,000 incurred for registration of mortgage deed; and (iv) Rs. 10,000 for harassment and mental agony. 3. Upon hearing both the parties excluding opposite party No. 3, the dealer, who had neither put in appearance nor filed any reply, the District Forum found the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service and allowed the complaint. The opposite parties 1 and 2 were directed to pay Rs. 29,000, i.e. Rs. 9,000 for margin amount; Rs. 10,000 for mental agony; and Rs. 10,000 towards expenses. It was also ordered that margin money of Rs. 9,000 shall be refunded, with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The opposite parties were further directed to discharge the mortgage deed. Rs. 500 were also imposed as costs. It was also directed that the above said compensation of Rs. 29,000 may be recovered from the Managing Director of the Karnataka SC/ST Development Corporation. Appeal to the State Commission was dismissed. Hence, the opposite parties are in revision before us. 4. Rs. 500 were also imposed as costs. It was also directed that the above said compensation of Rs. 29,000 may be recovered from the Managing Director of the Karnataka SC/ST Development Corporation. Appeal to the State Commission was dismissed. Hence, the opposite parties are in revision before us. 4. At the time of admission of this matter on 28th November, 2003, notice was issued limited only to the observations made against the officers of the Corporation particularly the Managing Director. 5. In our view, it cannot be disputed that the Corporation is constituted for the upliftment of the SC/ST persons and to give them opportunity to have a decent living and earning. The entire scheme is frustrated by various lapses on the part of the officers of the Corporation. 6. For this purpose, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the observations of the District Forum: “Opposite parties 1 and 2 have made agreement with opposite party No. 3 for purchase of Vikram Diesel Auto passenger vehicle and have paid Rs. 1,90,000 in advance, even before the sanction of loan in favour of the complainant. The fact is very, very curious. In their version they have said they do not know the whereabouts of opposite party No. 3. On 16.5.1998 the loan sanctioned in favour of complainant is Rs. 1,80,000. Even before the sanction opposite parties 1 and 2 have paid Rs. 1,90,000 to opposite party No. 3 which is a very curious and unwarranted. That shows that there is a secret deal between opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 3. When opposite party 3 does not have any vehicle with him why Rs. 1,90,000 were paid in advance. It is only to cheat the Government. This shows that opposite party No. 1 is there not for uplift of SC/ST persons but for uplift of cheats and rich people. These facts clearly show that there is deficiency of service.” 7. The aforesaid facts found by the District Forum reveal that there was total irregularity in payment of Rs. 1,90,000 to a dealer before sanction of the loan. 8. The opposite party No. 3, dealer was favoured, he was paid an amount of Rs. 1,90,000 before the sanction of the loan. He was not having any vehicle for delivery. The aforesaid facts found by the District Forum reveal that there was total irregularity in payment of Rs. 1,90,000 to a dealer before sanction of the loan. 8. The opposite party No. 3, dealer was favoured, he was paid an amount of Rs. 1,90,000 before the sanction of the loan. He was not having any vehicle for delivery. In such a case, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994) 1 SCC 243, is required to be reiterated. The Court observed that the authority empowered to function under a statute while exercising power discharges public duty; it has to act for general welfare; in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system; where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under any protective cover. The Court pertinently held: “It should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionary.” 9. For better administration/governance the aforesaid law is required to be implemented so that the welfare schemes framed by the Government reach the common consumer and the objects of such schemes are not frustrated. 10. However, in the proceeding before the Consumer Forum it is difficult to arrive at the conclusion that there was a secret deal between the petitioner and the dealer. Therefore, the observation that “this shows that there is a secret deal between the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3” is deleted, as there is no specific evidence on record to that effect. It would be open to the petitioner Corporation to hold the necessary inquiry and arrive at a proper conclusion with regard to negligence of duties by the concerned officers and recover the amount from them. 11. 1 and 3” is deleted, as there is no specific evidence on record to that effect. It would be open to the petitioner Corporation to hold the necessary inquiry and arrive at a proper conclusion with regard to negligence of duties by the concerned officers and recover the amount from them. 11. In the result, with the aforesaid observation the revision petition is dismissed, with a direction that the petitioner-Karnataka SC/ST Development Corporation Ltd., shall pay the amount as directed by the District Forum to the complainant, if not paid by this time. There in addition the petitioner shall pay Rs. 1,000 as costs to the complainant. Ordered accordingly. Revision Petition dismissed. –