PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA

1.     This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 992 of 2010 dated 05.08.2015 arising out of order dated 28.04.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Complaint No. 305 of 2009.

2.     Briefly stated, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner, are that the respondent/complainant who was an employee of the petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2009. As a member of the Employee Provident Fund (EPF) scheme, 1952, the respondent was contributing to the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) of the Food Corporation of India/petitioner under membership no. 6526. The respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum stating that the petitioner/opposite party had not paid him his dues of CPF, gratuity, leave encashment, etc amounting to Rs 7,36,500/- in view of pendency of a departmental enquiry. The District Forum dismissed this complaint on 28.04.2010 on the ground that the respondent/complainant had failed to apply in the prescribed form and had not completed the required formalities. The respondent filed FA No. 992 of 2010 before the State Commission which allowed the same and directed the petitioner to pay the complainant interest @ 8% per annum on the delayed  payment of CPF along with a composite amount of Rs 15,000/- as compensation and litigation cost. This order has been impugned before us on the grounds that the State Commission erred in entertaining the appeal since the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the Act, being an employee of the petitioner as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr Jagmitter Sain Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors. CA No.5476 of 2013 [(2013) 10 SCC 136]. The order is impugned also on the ground of having been passed without application of mind as no finding relating to deficiency in service has been arrived at; instead, the order is based on the approach “whatever the case may be…”.

3.      Respondent was placed ex parte on 24.05.2018. Legal heirs of the respondent were taken on record. However, no one appeared on her behalf despite notice. 

4.      I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully considered the material on record. It is seen that during the pendency of the proceedings before the District Forum, the petitioner has released the CPF and other dues to the respondent.    

5.      The petitioner has challenged the order of the State Commission on the ground of maintainability of the appeal. It is contended that the State Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal since the respondent was not a “consumer” under section 2(1)(d) of the Act being an employee of  the petitioner. In Dr Jagmitter Sain Bhagat (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that a consumer forum cannot deal with the service matters of Government servants. Reference in this regard was made to the earlier decisions in Board of Secondary Education Vs Santosh Kumar Sahoo, MANU/SC/0444/2010:VI (2010)SLT 119: III (2010)CPJ 28 (SC): (2010) 8 SCC 353 and  Bihar School Examination Board Vs Suresh Prasad Sinha MANU/SC/1605/2009:VII (2009) SLT 109: IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC): (2009) 8 SCC 483 and it was held as below:

20.     In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination a Government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions 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 civil court but certainly not a Forum under the Act.

21.     In view of the above, we hold that the Government servant cannot approach any of the Forum under the Act for any of the retiral benefits.

6.      Section 2(b) of the Act defines a ‘complainant’ to mean

(i) a consumer; or

(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or under any other law for the time being in force; or

(iii) the Central Government or any State Government; or

[(iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest;]

[(v)    In case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative;] who or which makes a complaint;

        As per Section 2 (d) “Consumer” is defined for the purpose of the Act as below:-

(d) "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) 1[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 1[hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person;

[Explanation: For the purposes of sub-clause (i), "commercial purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;]

7.      In the present case which is related to a grievance of non payment of CPF, gratuity and other dues, the respondent being an employee of the Food Corporation of India/petitioner, it is apparent that the services of the petitioner have not been engaged for a consideration by the respondent for the payment of such dues. CPF, gratuity and leave encashment as retiral benefits are part of service conditions and are paid under statutory provisions for which no consideration is paid by the Government servant. Therefore, the consumer fora do not have any jurisdiction to entertain a complaint pertaining to grievances with respect to retirement benefits of a Government employee. The State Commission has manifestly erred in entertaining the appeal and proceeding to pronounce orders. The revision petition is therefore liable to be allowed.  

8.      The revision petition is accordingly allowed. Order of the State Commission in FA 992 of 2010 dated 05.08.2015 is set aside with no order as to costs.