Consumer Complaint No: 186/2008

Date of presentation: 14.11.2008

Date of decision: 06/11/2009
Smt. Sushila Devi W/O late Shri Ram Narain,

Resident of B-2/144, Nand Nagri (Block B-2),

Delhi-110093.
… Complainant
Versus

1. M/S Birla Textiles Mills Baddi,

Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

2. The Employees State Insurance Corporation,

ESI Hospital, Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli,

District Solan, H.P. through its Regional Director.


…Opposite Parties.
For the complainant: Mr. J.S. Parmar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties: Exparte.

O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers, that, her deceased husband Shri Ram Narain was employed with the OP No.1, who was covered under the Employees State Insurance Scheme, with the OP No.2, hence, was entitled for all benefits, provided under the Employees State Insurance Act. It is averred that on, 21.11.2007, the deceased aforesaid received multiple injuries, while he was discharging his duty, as a result of which, he met his end. Thereafter, the complainant being her nominee, lodged the claim with the OPs regarding release of pension and other benefits, but the OPs, did nothing in the matter. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The notices of this complaint was issued to the OPs, who failed to put in appearance before this Forum, hence, was ordered to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 20.01.2009.

3. Thereafter, the complainant adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of her contention.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in not releasing her pension and other benefits, arising out of sudden demise of her husband, who was working with the OP No.1, and duly insured with the OP No.2 under Employees State Insurance Scheme. Though, the OPs, have not contested the complaint, despite their service through registered letter, yet, before proceeding further with this complaint, it has to be determined first, that the complaint filed by the complainant, under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the OPs, is, maintainable or not. Since, Section 75(3) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, debars the jurisdiction of this Forum, to entertain and try the present complaint, in view of the existence of ESI Act, a special Act, therefore, we are not in a position to go into the controversy raised by the complainant before us, in this complaint. Hence, the only remedy available to the complainant, is, to, approach to ESI court for appropriate redressal of her grievances, if any. Ordered accordingly. No order as to the costs. The learned counsel for the complainant undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, whereas, a certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OPs, through UPC. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.