<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.07.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 20th OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1669/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.K.N.Gopalakrishna Iyer,S/o Late Narasingha Rao,Aged about 68 years,No.88, Second Stage,Binny Layout, Vijayanagar,Bangalore – 560040.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Manager,Local Office,E.S.I Corporation,1st Cross, Magadi Road,Bangalore – 560023.Advocate – Sri.B.V.Badrinath.2. Manager,Personal and Administrate,M/s.Binny Limited.,Agraharam Road,Magadi Road,Bangalore – 560023.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to reimburse the medical expenses under the E.S.I scheme on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant started working in Binny Mill, Bangalore since May 1957. Regularly he was making E.S.I contribution to the Corporation. After attaining 58 years he retired on 30.06.1998. But thereafter again from 01.07.1998 he was taken on duty under the scheme as a retainer. But some how complainant could not continue the said job because of the health problems. Then he left the job. During the course of his employment he did make contribution to the E.S.I Corporation even after he assumed the charge as a retainer up to August 2007. When he sought for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him with the OP due to heart ailment and fracture, his claim was refused on the ground that his employer has not submitted form No.60 and 61 as contemplated. He did approach his employer but there was no proper response. Though he produced all the relevant records for the consideration of the OP they failed to settle the claim. Thus complainant being a senior citizen felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is bound to comply the Rules.60 and 61 of E.S.I rules of 1950 towards the medical benefit. As he failed to produce the required certificate from the employer as contemplated OP has repudiated his claim. Complainant has got an alternative remedy as provided U/s.75 of the E.S.I Act against his own employer. He has not made Binny Mill as a party nor he has taken steps against the employer. OP is ready to settle the medical claim if complainant complies rule.60 and 61of the said rules. No fault lies with the OP. The other allegations are baseless. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Complainant served interrogatories to the OP. OP answered the same. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant after attaining the superannuation retired from Binny Company on 01.07.1998. Thereafter he was retained under a particular scheme. It is the contention of the complainant that up to August 2007 he did make payment towards the E.S.I contribution. Employer deducted the same. During the month of July 2007 he had some heart problem and in August 2007 he met with an accident. That is why he took the treatment. Thereafter he made a claim to OP to settle the medical bills but his claim was refused. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that complainant has to produce certain declaration and certificate from his employer as contemplated under rule.60 & 61 rules of 1950 for the settlement of the medical benefits. Though sufficient and reasonable opportunity is given to the complainant, he has not complied the same. So no fault lies with the OP. We find there is a justification in the contention of the OP. It is also made clear that under the said Act complainant has got an alternative remedy as provided Under Sec.75 (1) (e) and Sec.75 (2) (f) of the E.S.I Act. Complainant has not exhausted the same. OP has also relied on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P No.543 of 1996. Copy of the said judgment is produced. We have followed the basic principles and guidelines enunciated by their Lordships in the above said decision. It is abundantly made clear that this Forum can’t decide the issue on hand which is barred U/s.75 of the E.S.I Act.<br /> <br /> 8. When that is so, the allegations of the complainant with regard to the deficiency in service on the part of the OP appear to be baseless. Complainant has to redress his grievance against his employer as contemplated and as refereed to above. If complainant complies rule.60 & 61 of the said rules naturally OP will settle the claim but when complainant himself has defaulted in complying the same he can’t allege the deficiency in service against the OP. Hence for these reasons we find complaint is devoid of merits. Accordingly complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />