PRESENT

                   Complainant by Adv.Rajendra chaudhary, present.    

                    Opponent by Adv.Sunil Kharwal present.         

ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President.)

1.                The complainant has filed the complaint as per Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for deficiency in service against opponents.

2.                The complainant was serving  as a Head master in B.P.E.S. and retired from service on 30.06.2014.  He served for total period of 29 years. According to complainant, as per Section 4(3) of the payment of gratuity Act 1972, he is entitle for the amount of Rs.5,80,541/- ( Rupees Five lakh eighty thousand five hundred forty one ).

3.                The complainant has received only Rs.3,46,985/- ( Rupees Five lakh  forty six thousand nine hundred eighty five ).  He claimed the difference of amount of Rs.2,33,556/- (Rupees Two lakh thirty three thousand five hundred fifty six only)

4.                The complainant alleged that, rejection of claim by the opponents is a deficiency in service as per Section 2(1 ) (g) of C.P.A. He claimed that opponents be directed to pay total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards difference amount and compensation for mental agony.

5.                The opponents  filed written version and denied all the allegations made in the complaint.  Admittedly complainant was serving with school and retired on superannuation on 30.06.2014.

6.                The opponents stated that complainant, is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The school is not service provider to Head Master.  The complainant is entitle to receive the amount as per rules , regulations and guidelines issued by education department of the Govt. of Maharashtra and amount was paid to him as per rules.

7.                The opponent alleged that, complainant is claiming amount as per payment of gratuity Act 1972, he is entitle to claim the amount by filing grievance before controlling authority who is responsible for administration of the Act.

8.                The opponents stated that, complainant has already been paid total gratuity amount legally payable to him.  It is prayed that complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

9.                We have heard both sides at length.  Perused complaint, written version, evidence affidavit , written notes of argument and all relevant documents produced on record by both sides.

10.              The payment of gratuity Act 1972,  has been passed with the object of providing a uniform scheme for payment of gratuity to employees  throughout the country, which came into force from 16.9.1972. The complainant has claimed amount as per section 4(3) of payment of gratuity Act, 1972.

11.              As per the legal position, payment of gratuity Act, 1972 is a complete code covering all the essential features of the scheme for payment of gratuity.  The complainant has applied as per the said Act, hence it would be proper in the interest of justice to direct him to take recourse as per the said Act.

12.              The complainant has not availed service as defined under section 2(1)(o)  of  C.P.A. Hence , the complainant will have  to move as per the act, as mentioned in the complaint.

13.              The complainant is entitle to have recourse to section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 for time required before this forum from institution of complaint till today i.e. 19.10.2016.

14.              In the result, we pass following order.

                                         ORDER

1.       The Complaint No.157/2014 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

2       The complainant is entitle to move before proper authority as per payment

         of gratuity Act, 1972.          

3.       Copy of this order be sent to both parties.