IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE<br /> <br /> Dated this 12TH day of October 2010<br /> <br /> Complaint No. 556/2010<br /> <br /> Present: 1) Sri. T.H. Narayangowda, President.<br /> 2) Smt. Y.V.Uma Shenoi Member.<br /> 3) Sri. Shivakumar.J, Member.<br /> <br /> Complainant: S.Shankar, S/o Late T.Shivalingaiah,<br /> No.1036, 8th Main, Gokulam 3rd Stage,<br /> Mysore-2.<br /> <br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs.<br /> Opponents: The Director, All India Institute of Speech <br /> and Hearing, Manasa Gangothri, <br /> Mysore-6.<br /> <br /> (By Sri A.V.Jayarama Rao, Advocate))<br /> <br /> (Order dictated by Sri. T.H.Narayana Gowda, President)<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 against the opponent praying for directing him to sanction the fixed medical allowance of Rs.300/- per month as per Central Government order w.e.f. 01.09.2008 along with interest and exemplary compensation including the cost of the complaint etc., <br /> <br /> 2) The case of the complainant in brief as set out in the complaint is as follows:-<br /> That the opponent is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and managed through an Executive Council. The opponent society has its own memorandum of Association, Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws. The complainant had served in the opponent’s society from 26.07.1975 and retired on 23.03.1993. The opponent has settled the retirement benefits as per Central Government Service Rules. As per the Bye-laws of the opponent’s society, the employees and their family members are entitled for the medical aid as admissible to the Central Government employees. The recommendations of the 6th pay commission accepted by the Central Government, are made applicable to the pensioners and family pensioners of the opponent society including the complainant. As per G.O. O.M. No.4/25/2008-P & PW(D) dated 26.05.2010, the Central Government has sanctioned the fixed medical allowance of Rs.300/- per month to its pensioners and family pensioners w.e.f. 01.09.2008. As per the Bye-laws of the opponent society, orders of service conditions issued by the Central Government from time to time are made applicable to the employees and pensioners of the opponent society. Therefore, the complainant has written a letter dated 09.06.2010 to the opponent with a request to make arrangement for the drawal and disbursal of the fixed medical allowance of Rs.300/- per month w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and onwards. But, the opponent has neither complied with his demand nor given any reply to the said letter. Thus, the opponent has maintained silence and thereby caused mental agony, inconvenience and hardship to the complainant-pensioner who is a senior citizen and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. Hence, this complaint is filed against the opponent. Mainly on these averments, the complainant has urged for allowing the complaint with cost. <br /> <br /> 3) In pursuance of the notice, the opponent appeared before this Forum through his counsel and resisted the complaint by filing the written version. In the said version, the opponent has denied the claim of the complainant including the deficiency in service alleged against him and further contended that earlier the fixed medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month was being paid to the pensioners and family pensioners of their society as admissible to the Central Government employees. But, the Central Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as per the letter dated 24.01.2005 addressed to the opponent clearly clarified that the order regarding payment of fixed medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month is not applicable to the pensioners of the Central Autonomous bodies and also directed the society to stop the payment of fixed medical allowance to its pensioners. Accordingly, the payment of fixed medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month was stopped. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the fixed medical allowance as claimed in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed. The opponent has also contended that the complainant has already approached the Central Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore by filing the original application bearing No. O.A. No. 527/2009 seeking direction to opponent and others to extend the medical reimbursement facilities including the fixed medical allowance to him as admissible to the Central Government in service employees and the same is still pending before the CAT, Bangalore. Therefore, this complaint is not maintainable in law and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The opponent has also further contended that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the C.P.Act and there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. Hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. Mainly on these grounds, the opponent has urged for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. <br /> <br /> 4) After filing of the version by the opponent, the case was posted for evidence. Thereupon the complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of his case and closed his side. Thereafter, the opponent has filed the affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of the defence and closed the evidence. Hence, thereafter the complainant has filed his written arguments and oral arguments of both sides were also heard and then posted the case for orders.<br /> 5) In view of the aforesaid contentions taken by both the parties and the arguments submitted by their advocates, the points that would arise for our consideration are as follows:-<br /> <br /> 1) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?<br /> 2) What Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 5) Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In the negative. <br /> Point No.2:- As per final order for the following, <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6) Point No.1:- As already stated above, in order to prove his case, the complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents. On the other hand, in order to prove the defence, the opponent has filed the affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents. Of course, in the affidavit, the complainant has duly sworn on oath in respect of all the averments of his case made out in the complaint and also relied upon several documents in support of his case made out in the complaint. But, in the said evidence, there is absolutely no material to show that there is an order to pay the fixed medical allowance of Rs.300/- per month to the pensioners of opponent society. The complainant has strongly relied upon the Bye-law Nos.25 and 26 of the opponent society in support of his claim. But, on the careful perusal of the said bye-laws clearly disclose that they are applicable to the employees of the opponent society and not to the pensioners. Apart from the same, the opponent has also contended that the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as per the letter dated 24.01.2005 addressed to him clarified that the order regarding payment of fixed medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month is not applicable to the pensioners of the Central Autonomous bodies. In support of the said contention, the opponent has also relied upon the letter dated 24.01.2005 written to him by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India. The contents of the said letter clearly discloses that the fixed medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month sanctioned to the Central Government pensioners is not applicable to the pensioners of Central Autonomous bodies. Thus, the contents of said letter fully support the contention of the opponent that the complainant is not entitled for the fixed medical allowance as applicable to the Central Government pensioners. Apart from the above, the material on record discloses that the complainant has already approached the Central Appellate Tribunal in O.A. No. 527/2009 for directing the opponent, Union of India, and another to extend the benefit of medical reimbursement facility to him as applicable to the Central Government Employees and the said application is still pending. Thus from the material on record, it is not possible to hold that there is an order to pay fixed medical allowance to the complainant as applicable to the Central Government pensioners. In the absence of any such clear cut order, it is not possible to say that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent as alleged by the complainant. Hence, under these circumstances, we have no other alternative except to hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case and therefore he is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for the complaint. Consequently, we answer the point No.1 in the negative. <br /> <br /> 8) Point No.2:- In view of the reasons and finding recorded on the point No.1, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed in the ends of justice with a direction to the parties to bear their own costs. Hence, in the final result, we proceed to pass the following, <br /> :: O R D E R ::<br /> <br /> The complaint is hereby dismissed. <br /> <br /> Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 12th day of October 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Member. Member. President.<br /> S.R.L.<br />