RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No. 1071 of 2014
1- Chief General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd., East Circle, Lucknow.
2- Joint Controller Telecom Accounts, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd., East Circle, Lucnow. .….Appellants.
Versus
Shree Narayan Dwivedi s/o late Raghunandan Dwivedi,
R/o Tehsil, Sohawal, District Ambedkarnagar. ..Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Govardhan Yadav, Member.
Sri Sunil Sharma for the appellants.
Sri R.K. Gupta for the respondent.
Date 1.8.2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma, Member)
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.4.2014, passed by the District Forum, Ambedkarnagar in complaint case no.165 of 2004.
The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant was an employee of the BSNL who retired on 30.9.2003 but according to the complainant, the retiral benefits such as pension, GPF etc. was not given to him in the right earnest and delay of 11 months was caused in releasing the amount of Rs.8 lacs of fund amount and has therefore, filed a complaint case for awarding a compensation of Rs.59,000.0 which he would have earned as interest had the amount paid to him in time. The appellants/OPs filed their reply mentioning therein that the complaint was himself responsible for the delay caused in payment of the retiral benefits as he could not furnish the required information and
(2)
it is only after furnishing of the required information that the amount was released and hence they did not commit any delay in releasing the retiral benefits. The complainant was having only Rs.8,691.00 in his fund account and it was entirely wrong to say that Rs.8 lacs was in balance in his fund account. Besides, the entire amount of fund etc. have been paid with interest, therefore, this complaint was liable to be dismissed. The ld. Forum thereafter, passed the impugned order as under on 24.4.2014:-
"परिवादी का परिवाद विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध स्वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षीगण को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि वह परिवादी को क्षतिपूर्ति के रूप में रूपया 30,000.00 तीस हजार एवं वाद व्यय 2000.00 रूपये दो हजार यानि कि कुल 32000.00 बत्तीस हजार रूपये 45 दिवस के भीतर अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। विपक्षीगण के द्वारा आदेश का अनुपालन दी गयी समयावधि के अन्दर न करने पर रूपया 20.00 बीस रूपये प्रतिदिन के हिसाब से गणनाकर निर्णीत राशि में जोड़कर भुगतान किया जायेगा। ज्ञातव्य हो कि प्रतिदिन रूपया 20.00 में रूपया 10.00 परिवादी के पक्ष में तअदायगी देय होगा तथा रूपया 10.00 उपभोक्ता कल्याण कोष के पक्ष् में जमा कराया जायेगा। निर्णय की प्रतिलिपि पक्षकारो को तुरन्त प्रदत्त करायी जावे।पभोक्ता OPs not have the jurisdiction to deal with this complaint as the complainant was not a consumer of hte issed. Then"
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order that this appeal has been filed mainly on the grounds that the Forum below did not have the jurisdiction to deal with this complaint as the complainant was not a consumer of the appellants/OPs. Besides, the delay caused in releasing the retiral benefit was on account of the complainant, not furnishing the required information and therefore the appellants/OPs did not commit any deficiency in service. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.
Heard counsel for the parties and perusal the entire records.
(3)
In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant was the employee of the appellant and that he was to be paid retiral benefits and that there was delay in making payments of the retiral benefits to the complainant. The disputed point according to the appellants is that the complainant was not a consumer as against the appellants and therefore, this complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Another disputed point is that the complainant himself was responsible for the delay in furnishing the information for releasing the retiral benefits to the complainant by the appellants.
So now it is to be seen as to whether the complainant was a consumer vis-à-vis the appellants/OPs or not. If so, its effect. It is also to be seen as to whether the appellants/OPs committed any deficiency in service in releasing the retiral benefits to the complainant or not. If so, its effect.
With regard to the point as to whether the complainant was a consumer or not, it is argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that the complainant was not a consumer as by being merely an employee he cannot claim himself to be a consumer for filing a complaint case under the Consumer Protection Act. On the contrary, it is argued by the ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant that the complainant as a pensioner was a consumer of the appellants/OPs and in this regard he has cited IV(2013) CPJ 353 (NC), Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. & anr. Vs. Sanjay Gupta & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the pensioner is a consumer and that law does not make any distinction between the Government or Private companies.
(4)
So, from the aforesaid case law, it is clear that the complainant as a pensioner was a consumer of the appellants/ OPs and therefore, he was entitled to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before the Forum below. It is accordingly, decided.
We now come to the next point as to whether the appellants/OPs committed any deficiency in service in not releasing the payment of the retiral benefits to the complainant. If so, its effect. In this regard, it is argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that the complainant himself did not furnish the information required for releasing of the fund amount etc. as the information regarding date of birth of his wife and children were not provided to the appellants for processing the pension papers and consequently releasing the funds. It transpires that the required information alongwith form V was furnished by the complainant on 23.8.2003 whereas the amount of fund was released on 30.11.2003, amount of leave-encashment was released on 28.11.2003, amount for commuted leave was released on 20.8.2004, group insurance amount on 7.4.2004 and 5 months pension was released in March, 2004. So it is clear that the amount could not be released immediately on the retirement of the complainant on 30.9.2003 as the required information was submitted by him only a month before instead of furnishing them before six months of retirement as per rules. Besides, the information regarding date of birth etc. was provided on 5.3.2004 and therefore, on the basis of the information provided by the complainant with delay, it cannot be said that the appellants/OPs committed any considerable delay in
(5)
releasing the amount of retiral benefits to the complainant. In fact, the complainant himself was responsible for the delay in furnishing the information required for processing his retiral benefits. The complainant has not been able to clearly prove that Rs.8 lacs was due to be paid by the appellants/OPs as only Rs.8,691.00 was found remaining in his fund account.
Considering the entire circumstances of the case, we do not find that there was much delay in releasing the amount of retiral benefits of the complainant. The ld. Forum below has not clearly appreciated the fact that the delay was on account of the complainant not furnishing the information in the right earnest whereby the payment could not be released to the complainant in time. In fact, there was no deficiency in service committed by the appellants/OPs as the complainant himself was responsible for not supply the required information with delay causing delay in releasing of the funds. Therefore, the ld. Forum has passed the impugned order erroneously and therefore, it cannot be sustained. It is accordingly liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.4.2014, passed by the District Forum, Ambedkarnagar in complaint case no.165 of 2004 is set aside and the complaint dismissed.
Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(Vijai Varma) (Govardhan Yadav)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri PA-II
Court No.5
