Haryana

Ambala

CC/296/2014

SANDEEP KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

DISTT SOCIAL WELFARE - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT GARG.

24 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 296 of 2014

                                                          Date of Institution         : 29.10.2014

                                                          Date of decision   : 24.08.2017

 

Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Raj KUmar R/o Village and Post office – Binjalpur, Tehsil- Barara, Distt-Ambala (Haryana).

……. Complainant.

 

The Distt. Social Welfare Officer- Ambala, Distt. Haryana

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.                         

 

 

Present:       Sh. Amit Garg, counsel for Complainant.

                   GP on behalf of OP.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the deceased Puran Chand was the paternal uncle of the complainant and he was died on 16.01.2013 due to biting of bees when he was working in the fields and as per the provisions of the RGPBY, it was an unnatural death. Further submitted that the complainant applied for the compensation under RGPBY in the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barara, Distt. Ambala within time limit for the death of deceased Puran Chand and submitted all the relevant documents which were necessary for the approval of compensation but the OP rejected the claim of the complainant vide his letter No.10 dated 01.01.2014 by giving remarks “the deceased was the uncle of the complainant. Further submitted that as per the conduct of the OP, it is clear that he deliberately does not want to sanction the compensation/claim for the death of the deceased in the favour of the complainant and want to swallow it himself which is totally illegal and against the law of the land and punishable in the eye of law. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement submitting that the complainant stopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct and the OP has already informed in writing vide letter No.10 dated 01.01.2014 to the complainant that the complainant is not the legal heir of the deceased. The deceased was uncle of the complainant and as such the case of the complainant does not come under the purview of Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojna. In such type of case, the nephew of the deceased is not legal heir of the deceased and Nephew do not come under the purview of the Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojna as well as Hon’ble court has got no jurisdiction to entertain this type of case vide RP No.1079/2012 dated 28.04.2012 in cases Mamta Devi passed by National Forum, New Delhi. So, OP has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1-A along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-6 and close his evidence. On the other hand, OP has also tendered affidavit as annexure R-A and closed his evidence.

4.                 Without going on the merit of the case, we are coming on the point that whether complaint fall under the definition of Consumer Protection Act or not? We have gone through the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(I) (d) (i) which reads as under:

                   “Consumer means any person who-

(i)                “buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or party paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any use of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”.

(ii)               “Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of ) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services of any commercial purpose)”

5.                In the present case, the main grievance of the complainant is that his uncle has been died on 16.01.2013 due to biting of bees and applied for compensation under RGPBY in the office of OP (Annexure C-1) but OP has been rejected the claim of the complainant vide his letter No.10 dated 01.01.2014 by giving remarks “The deceased was the uncle of the complainant.”

                   On the other hand, GP on behalf of OP argued that the complainant is not legal heir of the deceased Puran Chand and Nephew do not come under the purview of the Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojna.

                   Perusal of the record, it is clear that the neither the complainant has paid any consideration nor he has availed any kind of services from the side of the OP and relied upon the law laid down by  Hon’ble National Commission in case title Director General, social Justice & Empowerment Department & another Vs. Mamta Devi Alias Mamta Sharma R.P.No.1079 dated 2012 decided on 24.08.2012 wherein it has been mentioned that going by the peculiar facts and circumstances, of the present case, we allow the revision petition only to the extent and by holding that the dispute raised by the respondent- complainant could not have been entertained by Consumer fora. The above said judgment is fully applicable in the present case. So, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(I) (d) (i). Hence, the complaint devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed with no order to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :                                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

          (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member