Delhi

North West

CC/552/2024

MUKUND KAUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAMMU KASHMIR BANK TERMINAL BENEFITS DEPARTMENT - Opp.Party(s)

NEERAJ KUMAR

05 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION-V, NORTH-WEST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/552/2024
( Date of Filing : 07 Aug 2024 )
 
1. MUKUND KAUL
A-151, SHAKTI APPARTMENT, SECTOR 9 ROHINI NEW DELHI
NORTH
DELHI
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. JAMMU KASHMIR BANK TERMINAL BENEFITS DEPARTMENT
JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK TERMINAL BENEFITS DEPARTMENT HUMAN RESOURCE 2ND FLOOR, CORPORATE HEADQUARTER M.A. ROAD SRINAGAR
SRINAGAR
JAMMU AND KASHMIR
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  NIPUR CHANDNA PRESIDING MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 05 Nov 2024
Final Order / Judgement

ORDER

05.11.2024

 

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

  1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP. In brief the facts are that OP is the terminal benefit department(Human Resources) in which complainant’s mother late. Smt. Asha Kumari Kaul was the employee having employee code no. D-06937. Complainant’s mother expired on 27.11.2020 in a road accident. It is further stated that complainant’s mother was getting pension from OP and after her death the complainant was only surviving member who is eligible for getting the pension on her mother place.
  2. It is further stated that complainant is suffering from mental illness since 2010. He is disable and cannot work as a normal man  due to mental illness and also have 40% permanent disability in relation to his brain.  The complainant is therefore not working due to aforesaid illness and not having any income from any source. The complainant therefore approached OP for getting the pension in his mother’s place. It is further alleged by the complainant that he provided all the requisite documents as and when demanded by the OP for getting the pension on his mother’s behalf. It is further alleged by the complainant that on various occasions he approached OP and also sent emails but of no use. The complainant also sent legal notice dated 22.01.2024 thereby calling upon the OP to reimburse the due  accrued as “ pension“ to the complainant on his mother’s place from November, 2020 till today. The OP Bank vaguely replied to the legal notice and denied the entitlement of pension to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the rejection, complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.
  3. The present complaint case is on admission stage. We have heard ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Neeraj Kumar on the maintainability of the present complaint and have perused the record.
  4. Before adverting to the disposal of the present complaint case, let us see the relevant provision under C.P Act, 2019 as to who is the consumer:

As per Section 2 (7) of C.P Act, 2019 consumer means any person who:

i)   buys any goods 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 user 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” or

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 first mentioned persons [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].

 

  1. Admittedly, as per the aforesaid provision consumer is one who had hired the services against the payment made.
  2.  By way of this complaint , the complainant has approached this Commission for getting the retirements benefits. The complainant is entitled to claim the retirement benefit only according to the service condition and relevant regulations or statutory rules.
  3. In the present case, the complainant has not hired any services of OP nor had paid any consideration in respect to any services, in fact, the complainant is claiming the retirement benefit against OP from this Commission which is not a consumer dispute and this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute relating to the service condition, its regulation and statutory rules.   
  4. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant in the present complaint therefore  does not fall within the definition of consumer as define in the Section 2 (7) of CP Act, 2019 and is not a consumer, we therefore, find no merits in the complaint,  same is hereby dismissed.
  5. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  05.11.2024.

 

 

 

           SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                          RAJESH

            PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                       MEMBER   

 
 
[ NIPUR CHANDNA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.