Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/162/2014

LABOUR OFFICER - Complainant(s)

Versus

G. GOPALAKRISHNAN - Opp.Party(s)

T. RAVI KUMAR

12 Mar 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                                      BEFORE   HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI          PRESIDENT    

                                                         THIRU.J. JAYARAM                                                    JUDICIAL MEMBER                                                                                           TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                             MEMBER

 F.A.162/2014

[Against the Order in  C.C.No.30/2012 dated 28.11.2013 on the file of the DCDRF, Nagapattinam]

DATED THIS THE 12^thDAY OF MARCH,2015

1.  The Labour Officer,

     Social Welfare Scheme,

     Nagpattinam – 611 011

2.  The District Collector,

     District Collector’s Office,

     Nagapattinam – 611 003.                     ..  Appellants/Opposite parties

                                                     Vs

G. Gopalakrishnan,

S/o Govindasamy,

BSNL Nagar, 18, Ram Nagar,

Senthangudi,

Mayiladuthurai,

Nagapattinam District                                   .. Respondent/Complainant      

Counsel for Appellants/Opp.parties              :  M/s.T.Ravikumar

Counsel for Respondent                               :  M/s.D.Veerasekaran  

                This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 04.12.2014 and on hearing the arguments of appellant’s counsel, and upon perusing the  material records, this commission made the following order.

THIRU J.JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.   This appeal is filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Nagapattinam in CC.30/2012, dated

28-11-2013 allowing the complaint.

2.   The case of the complainant is that he became a member of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Board on payment of membership fee of Rs. 100/- on 05.02.2000.  He has renewed the same on 04-02-2003 on payment of renewal fee of Rs. 10/- with late fee of Rs. 10/-.  Subsequently he renewed on 14.02.2005 on total payment of Rs. 20/-. On completion of 60^th year he applied for pension and the first opposite party has informed him that he was not eligible to get pension as he was not a member continuously for a period of 5 years.  He has renewed his registration and the registration fee along with late fee has been duly received and hence he cannot be denied his pension.  The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for repudiation of his claim for pension and has sought to direct the opposite parties to sanction pension and to pay compensation and costs. Hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay pension to him and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for  mental agony and hardship and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 3.  The contention of the opposite parties in the written version is that the complainant is not eligible to get the pension as he has failed to renew his registration as per Rule (1) and (2).   The complainant has renewed his membership with delay and hence he could not be said to have been a member for the continuous period of 5 years and therefore his claim for pension is rightly rejected by the 1^st opposite party and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.   The District Forum considered the rival contentions and  allowed the complaint, passing an order directing the 1^st opposite party to sanction the pension to the complainant under clause 18 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Social Security and Welfare Scheme 2006, from the date of his eligibility that is from 6.2.2006 onwards  and to pay the entire arrears of pension within 60 days from the date of this order to the complainant failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% interest per annum from 6.2.2006 and shall also pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, hardship and inconvenience caused to the complainant, in case of default.

5.  Aggrieved by the impugned order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

6.  The appellants contended that mere payment of fee for registration and payment of late fee would not make the respondent a consumer. On the other hand the respondent had contended that plea of non- applicability of the Consumer Protection Act taken by the appellants has to be rejected on account of the fact that the 1^st appellant, who is the person responsible for the Pension Scheme, must be held to be a 'service provider' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. In support of his contention he has relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Vs

Bhavani

reported in AIR 2008 SC 2957.  The said citation squarely applies to the present case in hand.  A reading of the definitions of 'consumer' and 'service' clearly shows that the scope and ambit of the above two terms are wide enough to take within their fold  like the respondent herein and the service rendered by the Board. The word 'service' cannot be given a restrictive or narrow meaning. It has to be given a wider connotation. It takes within its fold service of any description which is made available to potential users in the field of banking, financing, etc.  Any  delay  in disbursement   of  pension should be viewed  seriously. If there is no justifiable reason for the procrastination, the officers responsible for the laches  should  not  be  spared.  Unless there is accountability, lethargy and indifference will prevail. The Consumer Protection Act, is a milestone in the history of socio economic legislation and is directed towards achieving public benefit and on a plain reading of the provisions unaided by any external aid of interpretation it applies to the case before us. The legislative intention is thus clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The test, therefore, is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by it is service or even facility. The officer who is rendering statutory service on the basis of rules and regulations by charging fee he would be liable to be proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because the complainant avails of the services by paying statutory fees.  The concept of sovereign function has undergone changes and in a welfare state, where the activities of the government extend to several spheres, the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign for the purpose of immunity has largely disappeared as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Chairman, Railway Board

vs.

Chandrima Das

reported in (2000) 2 SCC 465.   As such we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the appellants that that they are discharging sovereign functions.

7.     Therefore we are of the view that the respondent comes squarely within the definition of 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), in as much as, by becoming a member of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Social Security and Welfare Scheme  and contributing to  the  same,  the complainant was availing of the services rendered by the 1^st appellant for implementation of the Scheme. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the complaint filed before the District Forum is maintainable.

8.  The appellants further contended that the respondent has not been a member of the scheme for continuous 5 years period and hence he is not eligible for pension. The respondent had strongly contended that as per G.O.MS. No. 36 dated 28-02-2011 he is eligible for pension by relying upon Clause 13 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Construction Workers) Welfare Scheme 1994 which reads as under

“13 (1) Eligibility : - Every registered manual worker who has completed 60 years of age is eligible for pension”

Perusal of the above makes it clear that the respondent/complainant is eligible for pension as he has registered with the appellants and had completed 60 years of age. Therefore we are of the view that the respondent/complainant is eligible for pension.

9.       The appellants have contended that the 2nd opposite party ie.,the District Collector has no role in the dispute and he is not a necessary party to the proceedings. On perusal of records we find that the 2^nd opposite party has no role in the case and so we are inclined to accept the contentions of the appellants in this regard and accordingly the complaint as against the 2^nd opposite party has to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the conditional interest has to be reduced from 12 % to 9%. As far as compensation for mental agony is concerned, as interest on the pension amount has been granted we feel that there is no need for awarding compensation. Otherwise there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

        In the result the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified as follows : -

(i)  the 1^st opposite party is directed to sanction the pension to the complainant under Clause 18 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Construction Workers) Social Security and Welfare Scheme 1984 from 06-02-2006 with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum till payment

(ii)  the complaint is dismissed as against the 2^nd opposite party

(iii) the order of the District Forum to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards conditional compensation for mental agony is hereby set aside

 (iv) The 1^st opposite party shall pay costs of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainant in the appeal.

 

  P.BAKIYAVATHI             J. JAYARAM                         R.REGUPATHI

       MEMBER                JUDICIAL MEMBER                    PRESIDENT