Punjab

StateCommission

A/702/2016

Northren Zone Railway - Complainant(s)

Versus

Charnajiv Lal - Opp.Party(s)

Avinash sharma

03 Apr 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.702 of 2016

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 15.09.2016

                                                          Order Reserved on: 29.03.2017

                                                          Date of Decision  : 03.04.2017

 

Northern Zone Railway Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd, through its Chief Executive Officer (Acting).

 

                                                                       Appellant/Opposite party

                   Versus

 

Charanjiv Lal son of Chet Ram, r/o Anand Enclave, Malwal Road, Feorzepur City, Punjab

 

                                                                       Respondent/Complainant

 

First Appeal against order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Ferozepur.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

         

Present:-

          For appellant                : Sh.Avinash Sharma, Advocate

          For respondent            : Sh. Raman Goklaney, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant has directed this appeal against order dated 20.07.2016 of District Forum Ferozepur, directing the appellant to make payment of the deposited amount by the respondent of this appeal since 1998 uptill the latter's retirement with interest thereupon. The appellant has been further directed by District Forum to pay Rs.5000/- as consolidated compensation to the respondent of this appeal. The appellant of this appeal is the opposite party in the original complaint before District Forum and respondent of this appeal is the complainant therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that he is retired employee of Railway Department. He was working as Motor Mechanic in the office of Divisional Railway Manager Northern Railway Ferozepur Cantt and he retired from his service in the month of August 2012. He used to deposit Rs.50/- every month from the month of December 1998 till 31.08.2012 without fail during his service period as LIS. OP was having registration no. 13206, a/c no. FC11358 Old DRM Office Ferozepur Cantt and LIS payment was to be paid to complainant by OP on the occasion of his retirement from his service. The complainant is, thus, consumer of the OP. After retirement, he approached OPs for making LIS payment to him on number of times, but to no use. The complainant moved an application dated 13.07.2015 to OP through registered post with the request to make the LIS payment to him, but all in vain. The complainant also sent reminders on dated 05.08.2015, as well as, 09.09.2015 to OP in this regard. After waiting for a long period, OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other and flatly refused to make the LIS payment to complainant. OP sent vague reply to complainant on 21.09.2015. OP has been indulging in unfair trade practice by not making the above payments to complainant deliberately. The complainant has, thus, filed complaint against OP directing them to make the LIS payments to complainant immediately, besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.11,000/-as cost of litigation.

3.      Upon notice OP was set exparte, vide order dated 27.05.2016 of District Forum Ferozepur.

4.      The complainant tendered in exparte evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12.  On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ferozepur accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 27.07.2016. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ferozepur dated 27.07.2016, the OP now appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.

6.      The first submission raised by counsel for the appellant is that appellant (opposite party) was never served by District Forum and it has been wrongly set exparte thereat in complaint on 27.05.2016. We have to examine this point, as to whether OP now appellant was legally served before District Forum or not before proceeding against it exparte. Record of the District Forum has been scanned by us with the able assistance of counsel for the parties. On 22.04.2015, the complaint of the complainant (respondent of this appeal) was admitted and notice was issued to OP through agency of the District Forum for appearance on 27.05.2016. On 27.05.2016, report was received before District Forum that one Manod Kumar clerk for DRM office received the copy of the notice and documents and duly signed the notice sent to OP. Service was effected by Manbir Singh Peon on above Manod Kumar clerk on 26.04.2016. The submission of counsel for the appellant is that this is not valid service, because Manod Kumar is not employee of the appellant. It was submitted that head office of OP is at Baroda House at New Delhi and branch office is at Ferozepur. Service upon OP through Chief Executive Officer through Manod Kumar is also not a valid service. It is for the appellant to satisfy this Forum that Manod Kumar clerk was unrelated to OP to receive the summons with documents on its behalf. We have examined the record in this case. There is no affidavit filed by appellant specifically stating that Manod Kumar was not related to appellant and was, thus, not competent to receive the notice along with documents on its behalf. Affidavit of Charanjiv Lal complainant is on the record. He swore his affidavit on the basis of record and not from his personal knowledge. He has not specifically stated in this affidavit that Manod Kumar, who received the summons and documents on behalf of OP before District Forum was not an employee of the appellant. This ground has not been specifically taken by appellant in the memorandum of appeal that Manod Kumar clerk was not its employee and, thus, was not competent to receive the summons on its behalf. Hence, we repel the submission of the appellant that it has been set exparte in an illegal manner by District Forum.  

7.      On merits of the case, we have examined the exparte evidence of the complainant on the record. Affidavit of complainant Charanjiv Lal Ex.C-1 is on the record to the effect that he deposited Rs.50/- per month from the month of December 1998 till 31.08.2012 with OP regularly. The OP is having registered no. 13206, account no. FC11358 old DRM Office Ferozepur Cantt and this LIS payment was to be made by OP to complainant. He further stated that he approached OP for releasing the deposited amount with interest, but to no effect.  Ex.C-2 is passbook of the complainant. It has shown that amount of Rs.50/- per month has been deposited in it. Ex.C-3 document of Northern Zone Railway Employees Co-op Thrift & Credit Society Ltd Ex.C-3. Ex.C-4 is the saving bank account of the complainant. Ex.R-6 is letter addressed to OP from  complainant regarding refund the LIS payment to The Manager Northern Zone Railway Employees. Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-11 are reminders regarding the refund of the LIS payment.

8.      From appraisal of above-referred evidence on the record,  this fact is proved on the record that complainant was an employee of OP and he was retired, while working as Motor Mechanic from the Railway Department. He used to deposit Rs.50/- with OP regularly from the month of December 1998 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.08.2012. The monthly amount of Rs.50/- having been paid by the complainant to OP and Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 are the sufficient proof regarding deduction of each month payment of complainant from his account. The District Forum has rightly concluded that there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. We find no illegality or material infirmity in this finding of District Forum holding that the relationship of consumer and service provider subsists between the parties in this case.

9.      The next submission of counsel for the appellant is that no cause of action accrued at Ferozepur to file the complaint. We find no force in the submission of appellant on this point. The counsel for appellant relied upon law laid down by Tamil Nadu State Consumer Commission Chennai in "R.R Manohar and others versus Cox & Kings (India) Ltd and another" reported in 200(4) CPJ 442 that registered office as party, is not necessary. The office of OP is at Ferozepur and the amount has been deposited by complainant at office of OP at Feorepur and thus, complainant has cause of action to file the complaint. Cause of action to file the complaint accrued at Ferozepur as well, where the payment was made to OP by him and same was to be refunded to him thereat and service was also to be provided him at the above station., The contention of the appellant is that it is a society covered by provision of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. The complainant is consumer and OP is service provider and hence it cannot be said that OP cannot be sued in this complaint. Consequently, we do not find any illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum passed in this appeal.

10.    As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal of the appellant and same is hereby dismissed by affirming the order of District Forum Ferozepur dated 27.07.2016 under challenge in this case.

11.    The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.6625/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be remitted by the registry to respondent /complainant of this appeal by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount, if any, shall be paid to complainant by the appellant of this appeal, as per order of District Forum within 45 days from receipt of certified copy of this order.

12     Arguments in this appeal were heard on 29.03.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

12.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

 

                                                               (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

                                                                                                         

April 3, 2017                                                               

(ravi)