BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.522/2012 against  C.C.No.4/2010, Dist. Forum, Khammam.

Between:

The Accounts Officer, (P.F.S.),

A.P.State Road Transport Corporation,

Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.               …Appellant/

                                                                       Opp.party

      And

M.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Pitchaiah,

A.D.C.  APSRTC., Khammam Depot.,

R/o.Kaikondaigudem(Post),

(via) Khammam Collectorate,

R/o.H.No.11-6-208/1/A,

Khammam District – 507 002.                       … Respondent/

                                                                    Complainant 

Counsel for the Appellant         :      Arun Kumar Lathker

Counsel for the Respondents    :    Ms.Vijaya Sagi      

QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE  INCHARGE PRESIDENT

And

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

WEDNESDAY, THE   EIGHTH   DAY OF MAY,

TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Oral Order  : (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member).

                                                 ***

This appeal is directed against the order dt. 14.2.2012  of the District Forum, Khammam made in C.C.No.4/2010 .

 The appellant herein is the opposite party and the respondent herein is the complainant in C.C.No.4/2010 .     For the sake of convenience  the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.

The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows: 

The complainant is a retired employee, worked in APSRTC, Khammam Depot  and according to the instructions of the Manager, APSRTC, Khammam he submitted Form-10-D (Family Pension Scheme)   in the month of August, 2007, the same was referred to  Accounts Officer(FPS), APSRTC on 30.8.2007 (O.P.).  The APSRTC Provident Fund authorities completed the process and sent the same to Asst. P.F. Commercial (Pensions),   Sub Regional Office, Warangal for payment order on 1.1.2008.  The  authorities of the said   Asst. P.F.Commissioner, Warangal  returned the said file to APSRTC, P.F. Office  Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Barkatpura, Hyderabad on 21.10x.2008. Thereafter, the file was sent back to Warangal  by  enclosing  relevant documents required by Asst.P.F.Commissioner (Pensions), Sub Regional Office, Warangal on 2.6.2009  and again the said 10-D file was returned on 20.9.2008 to Khammam  calling for the break in  service particulars order, from  the office of Khammam Depot Manager, but due to their work pressure, they were unable to move the file, for which, the complainant  himself    taken  the xerox copies  of his P-Case  and submitted to the concerned authorities vide inward no.5561/17.10.2008. Thereafter, the complainant waited for one year and then he had been to Warangal office and also  the office at Barkatpura, Hyderabad and on 27.7.2009, the complainant had been to Bus Bhavan and enquired about his amount, where he was informed that they sent the said file on 2.6.2008 by remanding    the previous proceedings from Khammam office to the office at Hyderabad and also advised the complainant to bring the despatch number and date of the concerned letter.  Since then, the complainant  is running from pillar to post and finally filed the present complaint, seeking direction to opp.party to pay  Rs.43,000/- towards retirement benefits, Rs.10,464/-  towards interest, Rs.17,760/- towards pension at Rs.740/-  per month  from 30.9.2007  to 1.10.2009  and Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering, mental agony, expenses , damages etc. 

Resisting the complaint, the opp.party filed counter/written version contending that the   Form 10-D under  Employee’s Family  Pension Scheme    of Sri M.Venkateswarlu,  the complainant herein, who was retired from service on 30.9.2007 were  received in the office of opposite party on 6.9.2007 through  Depot Manager, Khammam. The same was forwarded to Regional P.F.Commissioner Office, Barkatpura, Hyderabad on 13.10.2007, who is the authority for sanction of pension.  The claim was forwarded after settlement, to their disbursing office at Warangal for release of pension.   On the request of the complainant,  the Managing Director, Khammam has forwarded the claim on 21.8.2009. This office    pursued the matter with Regional Provident  Fund Office for early settlement of the claim. 

The opposite party further contended that the Regional Provident Organisation, Govt. of India  is the authority to sanction pensions under EPS  1995 Scheme. The employee will get pension, from the date of  his  retirement  directly  from Regional Provident Fund Organisation. The opp.party is not the authority either to pay pension or for payment of any liability claimed by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Therefore,  the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.  

During the course of enquiry, before the District Forum,  the complainant  filed his evidence affidavit    and got marked Exs.A1 to A13.   The opp.party has not adduced  either oral or documentary  evidence in proof of their contention. 

Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties  and on consideration of material on record and    taking into consideration  that after filing of the complaint, the opp.party had deposited an amount of Rs.64,226/- towards commutation  and pension arrears, the District Forum allowed the complaint,  in part,   directing the opp.party to pay  the  interest on the retirement benefits from the date of the order i.e. 1.1.2008 till the date of actual payment i.e. 21.7.2010  as per the rules, to the complainant and also awarded Rs.3000/- towards costs.

        Aggrieved by the said order, the   opp.party preferred the above appeal questioning the legality and the validity of the order.

We heard both sides  and perused the entire material placed on record.

        Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?

        The learned counsel for the appellant/opp.party submitted that the respondent/complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of    the Consumer Protection Act. That the  opp.party is the employer and the complainant herein  was an employee  with the opp.party. Thus  the employee and employer relationship cannot be considered as a ’Consumer’ within the meaning of the  Consumer Protection Act.    He placed his reliance on the decision  in the case of Union of India and others vs. Ramdayal reported in I (2012) CPJ 9 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that     “admittedly the complainant was employed as Fire Engine  Driver in Ordnance Depot under Ministry of Defence  and therefore  he was Central Govt. Employee -  Dispute raised by the complainant  was not a consumer dispute nor the complainant was a consumer as Accountant General  was not rendering any service to him within the meaning of the C.P.Act”.

 The learned counsel for the appellant   also relied on the decision in Premsingh Verma vs. Contonment   Executive Officer, Contonment Board and another reported in IV (2011) CPJ 496 (NC), the Hon’ble   National Commission held that  “the Petitioner herein has filed  his complaint, against his employer namely the Cantonment Board,      for his terminal benefits for which, the Consumer Forum, is not the appropriate authority because the complainant could not be treated as a consumer  qua  his employer within the meaning of the term  ‘Consumer’  under the Consumer Protection Act ,1986. “

        In the  above said judgement,   in the case of  Prem Singh Verma, the Hon’ble National Commission referring  to  the   judgements   of the Apex Court  in the case of  Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi , reported in III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC)    and the Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala State Co.op. Employees’ Pension Board vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum  reported in IV (2004) CPJ 627 observed  that the ratio laid down in two cases was respectively in respect of Provident Fund matters before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and release of pension  and other pension matters by the Employees’ Pension Board. Neither of the two authorities  in question against which the petitioners in the afore said cases (supra) had approached the concerned Consumer Fora  were employers  of the concerned petitioners, but independent statutory authorities dealing with  provident fund matters and the pension matters  and hence  the petitioners were treated as consumers qua  those authorities.   

           We consider that it is necessary to refer to dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi (supra) wherein  the Hon’ble Supreme Court   had an occasion to consider the similar  questions  that fall for consideration in this matter  and on such consideration, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

            “We cannot accept the argument that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, being Central Government, cannot be held to be rendering 'service' within the meaning and scheme of the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, under the Act and the

scheme discharges statutory functions for running the scheme. It has not, in any way, been delegated with the sovereign powers of the State so as to hold it as a Central Government, being not the authority rendering the 'service' under the Act. The Commissioner is a separate and distinct entity, it cannot legally claim that the facilities provided by the 'scheme' were not "service" or that the benefits under the scheme being provided were free of charge. The definition of "consumer" under the Act includes not only the person who hires the 'services' for consideration but also the beneficiary, for whose benefit such services are hired. Even if it is held that administrative charges are paid by the Central Government and no pad of it is paid by the employee, the services of the Provident Fund Commissioner in running the scheme shall be deemed to hsve been availed of for consideration by the Central Government for the benefit of employees who wouid be treated as beneficiary within the meaning of that word used in the definition of consumer. This Court in M/s.Sprinq Meadown Hospital & Anr. vs. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia & Anr. [JT 1998 (2) SC 620, to which one of us (Saghir Ahmad.J) was a party has already held that the "consumer" means a person who hires or avails of any services and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails the services. The Act gives comprehensive definition of 'consumer' who is the principal beneficiary of the legislation but at the same time in view of the comprehensive definition of the term "consumer" even a member of the family of such 'consumer' was held to be having the status of 'consumer'. In an action by any such member of the family of beneficiary of the service it will not be open for a trader to take a stand that there was no privity of contract”.

         The above said judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had not  been placed before the National Commission  in the case Union of India and other vs. Ramdayal  (supra). Therefore,  the Hon’ble  National Commission had no opportunity to consider the above referred   judgement of the Apex Court. 

In the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court , in the case of  Regional Provident Fund Commissioner(supra), we are not inclined to accept the submission  of the learned counsel for the appellant  that the complainant herein is not a ‘Consumer’   within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and that the subject matter of the provident fund does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. 

The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that  the District Forum, Khammam had no jurisdiction  to entertain the complaint,   as the opposite party is carrying out its administration at Hyderabad  and has its branches at other places  including Warangal, Khammam  etc., the complainant did not make any of the branch offices of the opposite party as party to the proceedings, instead made only head office as party.   We are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for  the appellant,  since by virtue of Sec.11(2),  a complaint can be instituted  in a District Forum   within the local limits of which, the opposite party has a branch office. Admittedly, the branch of the opposite party is situated at Khammam, as such,   the District Consumer Forum is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint .

Having regard to the above facts and circumstances , we do not find any grounds, much less valid grounds, to interfere with the impugned order of the District Forum.

In  the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. But in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                        INCHARGE PRESIDENT

                                                                             MEMBER

Pm*                                                                      8.5.2013