DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 03.04.2017 passed in First Appeal No. 702 of 2016 by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby the appeal of the respondent/OP was dismissed and the order of the District Forum, Ferozepur was affirmed. 2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the complainant, Charanjiv Lal was working as a Motor Mechanic in Divisional Railways Manager Northern Railway Feroepur Cantt. He retired from his service in the month of August, 2012. He used to deposit Rs.50/- per month from December, 1998 till 31.8.2012 towards LIS. The LIS payment was to be paid to the complainant at the time of retirement from his service. The complainant approached OP after retirement for releasing LIS payment. The complainant made several applications and reminders to the OP and waited till 9.9.2015 but under the pretext of one or other reason, OP refused to make LIS payment. Thus, it was alleged that the OP indulged into unfair trade practice and deliberately avoiding to make payment. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Feorzepur and prayed for LIS payment alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and the costs. 3. The District Forum decided the complaint ex parte against the OP/society and directed the OP to pay the amount deposited by the complainant since 1998 till his retirement alongwith interest, also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation. 4. Being aggrieved by the ex parte order of District Forum, OP filed first appeal before the State Commission, which was also dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP at admission stage. He vehemently submitted that the petitioner/OP was not served before the District Forum. Despite that, the District Forum passed an ex parte order on 27.7.2016. The counsel further submitted that the head office of petitioner/OP is situated at Baroda House at New Delhi and branch office at Ferozepur. The service of notice through Manod Kumar was not a valid service because Manod Kumar was neither clerk nor employee of OP. Mr. Manod Kumar was unrelated to OP to receive summons with documents on behalf of OP. Even on merits, the counsel submitted that the complainant was not a consumer and the cause of action to file the complaint was at Ferozepur. 6. We have perused the evidence on record and orders of both the fora below. Regarding jurisdiction, in our view, the office of OP is at Ferozepur and the amount has been deposited by complainant at office of OP at Ferozepur and thus, cause of action to file the complaint accrued at Ferozepur. The counsel for the petitioner/OP submitted that the Society was covered by the provisions of Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Act 2002, therefore, the complainant cannot sue for this complaint. We do not find any merit in this contention because section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provides the additional remedy. The OP dragged the matter from District Forum to this Commission without any justification. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court has strongly made observation of such attitude of the service providers in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Smt. Khazani & ANR. [Civil Appeal No. 6261 of 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8875/2010]. Even otherwise, in our view, the act of OP appears to be harassment to the retired employee-a senior citizen just for a meager sum of Rs.8,400/- 7. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the instant revision petition. It is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, which be paid to the complainant. The OP/petitioner shall comply entire order within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, otherwise, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the entire amount till its realization. |
