(By Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.Pongiappan, President)

This revision has been preferred against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Unnumbered CC No. /2017, dated 13.06.2017. The District Forum, Puducherry has rejected the complaint under the first proviso below section 12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. Challenging the correctness of order dated 13.06.2017 passed in Unnumbered CC No. /2017, the present revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner and prayed to set aside the order dated 13.06.2017.

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

3. The complainant is the Government servant who is working as Lower Division Clerk. In December 2009, he was allotted Government Quarters in which he is residing from the said date of allotment. In view of the fact that the Government quarters is under the control of opposite party, he is responsible for doing periodical maintenance and repair works in the Government quarters. Right from the date on which the petitioner took possession, the opposite party had not done any repair work. The water line and electrical fittings are not working properly. The building is in very dilapidated condition. The ceiling fans are likely to fall and injure. Due to dampness in the building, there is a chance for electric shock. Water supplied to the quarters is not pure and safe. Due to leakage of water, electronic and other appliances, books and important documents having by the petitioner are damaged. In this regard, on 31.08.2016 the revision petitioner sent a letter to the opposite party requesting the respondent to correct all the draw backs. He personally met the Engineers and requested to repair the quarters. But they have not shown any interest in complying the demand made by the petitioner. Hence, the rights of the revision petitioner are violated, he prayed for compensation.

4. The District Forum, Puducherry after receipt of the complaint from the revision petitioner on 10.04.2017, returned the same on 11.04.2017 saying that the petitioner is not a consumer under section 2(1)(d) r/w.Sec.2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Further it was stated that as per Section 55 (b) of U. T. Act, 1963, all proceedings shall be instituted against the Government of India i.e. Union of India, represented by the Chief Secretary to Government, pertains to the Government of Puducherry.

5. The returned complaint was re-presented by the complainant on 18.04.2017 saying that he is a consumer as he paid licence fee to the quarters. According to him, the complaint filed against the opposite party is maintainable. Having not satisfied by the above reasons, the District Forum has returned the complaint on 19.04.2017 by mentioning the reason that the Government does not render any service by allotment of quarters to the Government Servants, as such, the licence fee paid cannot be construed as consideration for availing service and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer.

6. Later, on 03.05.2017 the complainant again re-presented the complaint saying that admissibility of the complaint has to be determined within 21 days from the date of receipt of complaint as per Regulation 9 of the Consumer Protection Regulation. Only in the said circumstances, the complainant was heard in person on 16.05.2017 and on 29.05.2017. During his submissions, the revision petitioner/complainant urged that he is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. However, being not satisfied with the reasons stated by the revision petitioner/complainant, on 13.06.2017, the District Forum, Puducherry, after ignoring the submissions made by the revision petitioner/complainant, relying on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No.687/2008 dated 17.04.2009 and also after relying on the judgment of our Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 13.11.1995 reported in 1996 AIR 550, held that the petitioner is not a consumer and therefore, the complaint filed by the revision petitioner/complainant is not maintainable.

7. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed before this court.

8. First of all, the impugned order in the complaint is relates to the year of 2017. Further the complainant has filed the complaint under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein there is no provision for filing the revision petition. Infact, the revision petitioner ought to have filed appeal instead of filing the above revision petition. However, this Commission finds that this revision petition cannot be dismissed for the technical defects.

9. The revision petitioner in his written submissions urged to allow the revision petition on the following grounds:

(1) The Forum below has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.

(2) The forum failed to follow jus natural.

(3) The order of the learned Forum is not sustainable as it did not discuss all the points stated in written argument.

(4) Learned Forum did not follow the stare decisis of Hon’ble National Commission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court.

(5) Failure of the Forum to apply the dicta in case laws cited by the petitioner in correct perspective marks it illegal and reverse.

(6) The District Forum did not consider the fact that payment of licence fee and deduction of HRA, which is not nominal amounts to consideration.

(7) Once the Forum held that petitioner is not a consumer it must have refunded the fee paid as per the ratio of case law cited by the petitioner.

(8) Other view of Forum as illegal and based on surmises and conjectures vitiates it decision.

9. Further, the revision petitioner has relied on the judgment of our Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Savita Garg Vs. The Director, National Heart Institute in Appeal (Civil) No.4024 of 2003, wherein it was held that Consumer Forum is primarily provided to protect the interest of consumer and not short circuit the matter or to defeat the claim on technical grounds.

10. Now, on whole reading of such judgment would go to show that in respect to the present revision petition, there is no answer is available.

11. Secondly, the revision petition has relied on the judgment of our Hon’ble Apex Court dated 05.11.1993 in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, wherein also no answer is available as regards to the status of the revision petitioner.

12. Further, the revision petitioner has relied on the judgment of State Consumer

13. Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, dated 17.04.2009 in First Appeal No.687 of 2008, wherein it was held as follows:

“A reference with profit can be made to the decision of National Commission in the case of K.K.Miglani Vs. Assistant Engineer I-T, sub-division CPWD, Lodhi Colony … respondent II (2007) CPJ 140(NC). K.K.Miglani is a Government Servant working in Health Department. As a Government Servant, Government accommodation was given to him. Inspite of payment having recovered from K.K.Miglani, Government department failed to provide two doors Because of falling of piece of ceiling it caused damage to the washing machine. Therefore, K.K.Miglani filed consumer complaint in which similar objections were raised by Central Public Works Department. District Consumer Forum held that payment of license fee amounts to consideration. District Consumer Forum held that K.K.Miglani is a consumer.”

14. It is further held as follows:

“Relying on the decision of National Commission, we find hesitation to held that the respondent is a consumer and the dispute raised in the compliant is a consumer dispute. District Consumer Forum has every right to entertain and decide such type of consumer complaints.”

15. Therefore being the reason that there was contrary judgments find available in respect of status of the petitioner, it is necessary to find out whether the revision petitioner is a consumer under section 2(1)(d) r/w.Sec.2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not. In this regard, it is fairly admitted on either side that the revision petition is working as Lower Division Clerk and also he has provided with quarters for which, the revision petition is paying the licence fee. Therefore, the allotment of quarters by the opposite party is in connection with the employment having by the petitioner.

16. In this connection, our Hon’ble Apex Court held in the case of “Ministry of Water Resources and others Vs. Shreeput Roa Kandy (Civil Appeal) No.8472/2011 arising out of SLP No.26538 of 2019, dated 06.11.2019”, wherein it was observed that the Government servant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

17. Further, it was held as follows:

The Supreme Court in appeal held it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a Government raise any dispute regarding his service condition or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The Government servant does not fall under the definition of a “Consumer” as defined under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such Government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any of his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any or the Civil Court but certainly not a forum under the Act.”

18. Therefore, in the above judgment, our Hon’ble Apex Court held that Government Servant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, being the above reason that the revision petitioner is not a consumer and so we do not find any merit in the revision petition filed by the revision petitioner, hence the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

Dated this the 12th day of August 2022.