1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 18.04.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. A/11/680. In this Appeal filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party was dismissed, thereby affirming the Order dated 02.07.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli (“District Forum”) in CC No. 462 of 2010 wherein the complaint filed by the Complainant/OP was allowed.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint before the District Forum. Shri Popat Maruti Chavan (since Deceased) is referred to as the Complainant. Laxmi Mahila Sahakari Bank Ltd. is referred to as the Opposite Party (“OP Bank”).

3.      In brief, the Complainant served as an Executive Director at OP Bank until 31.05.2008 and served 29 years. Prior to joining OP Bank, he was the Superintendent at Smt. Champaben Walchand Shah Mahila Vidyalaya, Sangli. His appointment at OP Bank was through a Selection Committee in accordance with relevant legal provisions and all previous service benefits and facilities were continued as per the appointment order. During his tenure at OP Bank, he made dedicated efforts day and night towards the bank's development. Before retirement, the Chairman of OP Bank corresponded with his previous employer to arrange for retirement benefits, and adjustments to pay were periodically made. However, OP Bank failed to provide him timely retirement pay. On 23.06.2008, he sent a letter to OP Bank demanding his retirement pay. However, no response was received. Subsequent letters also failed to elicit response. On 24.08.2010, OP Bank replied, stating that there was no retirement pay scheme in place, rendering him ineligible for such pay. Consequently, feeling aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint No. 462 of 2010) before the District Forum, seeking interim relief of Rs.10,000 per month towards interim retirement pay, as well as the full retirement pay amount, along with accrued interest and other benefits.Top of Form

4.      In reply, the OP Bank denied most allegations and contended that the dispute wrt retirement pay falls outside the jurisdiction of the Forum since no agreement regarding retirement pay existed between them. Thus, he bears the burden of proving their entitlement to retirement pay as per Specific Relief Act. As per section 74 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, decisions regarding his appointment and related benefits are within the purview of the Registrar Co-op Societies. While OP Bank admitted his employment, it asserted that the failure to involve the College where he previously worked constitutes non-joinder of a necessary party, affecting the current proceedings.

5.      Moreover, the appointment order provided to the Complainant does not include mention of all benefits and service concessions claimed, suggesting a misrepresentation in the application. Additionally, OP Bank asserted that no decision was made to grant retirement pay to the Complainant, and no separate provisions or funds were allocated for this purpose by either party. Furthermore, under sub-rules 5(21) and 36(27) of the OP Bank regulations, retirement pay and Provident Fund disbursements are contingent upon a clear plan with approval from the Co-operative Department. OP Bank maintains that it lacks such a plan or fund specifically designated for retirement pay, and asserts that all other benefits, including Bonus, Ex-gratia Grant, Group Insurance, PF, and Staff Cash Security, have been duly disbursed. Therefore, OP Bank contended that it has not provided deficient service to the Complainant and therefore requests the dismissal of the Complaint.

6.      The District Forum vide order dated 02.07.2011 allowed the complaint and granted the following relief to the Complainant:

"8. Point No 4:

 In the complaint application the complainant has made a demand to pay him the amount of his retirement pay as on 10/8/2010 Rs.13,06,876/- with interest and thereafter also the retirement pay is to be paid for which the order may be passed. The retirement pay of the complainant was got fixed by the respondent from the Women College from time to time. The letter of fixation of pay of the complainant as per 5^th Pay Commission is available on Exhibit-5/8. Vide letter dated 10/8/2010 on Exhibit-5/24 the complainant has made demand to the respondent that as per the 6^th Pay Commission the amount of Rs.l3,06,876/- is to be fixed. However, no any evidence has been brought 'before the Forum that pay of the  complainant has been fixed as per 6th Pay Commission. It was essential to bring evidence before the Forum as to what was the pay of the complainant as per 6^th Pay Commission on the day since when the complainant was retired. But no any such evidence has been brought before the Forum. Hence it is the opinion of this Forum that instead of passing any order regarding the same it would be worth ordering that pay fixation of the complainant is to be made as per 6^th Pay Commission and exact amount to be paid is to be ascertained and the retirement pay is to be disbursed in time.-The complainant has made a demand of paying him a. sum of Rs.13,06,876/- along with 12% interest thereon. As there is no evidence to show on what basis this amount of Rs.13,06,876/- has been calculated, hence this demand is being denied. However, it would be worth ordering that if the respondent does not pay to the complainant the defaulted amount within stipulated time limit on the defaulted amount interest is to be paid at the rate of 9% p.a.

From above interpretation the Forum is hereby passing order as under:

ORDER

1. The complaint application of the complainant is partly allowed.
2. The respondent is hereby ordered that by fixing the retirement pay of the complainant since his retirement the retirement pay is to be disbursed to the complainant with the defaulted, amount and henceforth the retirement pay is to be paid to him regularly.
3. The respondent is required to fulfil the above mentioned order till 31/8/2011; otherwise they would be required to pay interest @9% p.a. on the defaulted amount from 31/8/2011.
4. If the respondent does not fulfil the above mentioned order till 31/8/2011, the complainant can file the matter under the provision of Consumer Protection Act against the respondent.”

7.      Being aggrieved by the District Forum order, the Appellant / OP filed Appeal No. 680/2011 before the State Commission. The State Commission in its Order dated 18.04.2018 dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the order of the District Forum, with the following observation:-

“5.  …in our view, bank is liable to account for the amounts payable to the retired Managing Director on the basis of the service record pursuant to the order, which is in force from the District Deputy Registrar concerned. That being so, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award as it was passed on judicial order passed by District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sangli. Hence, we dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs.”

8.      Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 18.04.2018 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner / OP Bank has filed the instant Revision Petition bearing no. 1358 of 2018.

9.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Bank has argued that a complaint from an employee regarding refusal of pension falls beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. To substantiate this argument, the Counsel referenced the following judgments:-

a. Konareddygari Adinaraynareddy, v/s State Bank of Hyderabad and another reported in 2022 SCC Online 797

b. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v/s. Bhavani Prasad. Reported in (2008) 7 SCC, 111.

c. Manager, Zilla, Sahakari, Kendriya Bank Ltd V/s. Hari Narayan Bhargava (Dead) reported in 2011 SCC Online NCDRC 448.

10.    Additionally, the learned Counsel highlighted that if any pensionary benefits are indeed owed to an employee, it is the function of the regional provident fund commissioner, as per section 7A of The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, to determine the amount payable by the employer. In this particular case, the Respondent neither opted for the pension scheme nor contributed to the pension fund throughout their employment tenure. Moreover, he has already received the full entitlement, including PF, gratuity, group insurance, staff cash security, bonus, and ex-gratia payments, totalling Rs.17,85,856/-. Further, the Petitioner Bank is under the Cooperative Society Act, and as per Section 16 of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc Provisions Act, 1952, Cooperative Banks are expressly excluded from proceedings related to claims for pension funds.

11.    The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainants through their LRs asserted that the Respondent, in seeking employment benefits and pension from the Petitioner, falls within the definition of a consumer under the Act as the Respondent availed services from the bank and made claims related to employment and thus is a consumer. Specifically, an employee who seeks benefits or makes claims against the employer can be a consumer under the Act. In this case, he served the Petitioner for 29 years, retiring on 31.05.2008, thus entitling him for pension. Also, the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sangli has already opined that depriving him of pension constitutes a violation of natural justice. In support of his arguments, he relied on:

(a) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V. Bhavani reported in (2008), 7 SCC 111.

(b) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V. Shiv Kumar Joshi, (2000) 1 SCC 98.

12.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record as well as orders of both the fora and rendered thoughtful consideration and arguments of learned Counsels both the parties.

13.    It is uncontested position that the Complainant was an employee of the Petitioner Co-operative Society Bank. He approached the District Forum against denial of his pension benefits. The learned Counsel for petitioner raised a significant issue concerning jurisdiction of the consumer forum and argued that he does not qualify as a "Consumer" since he served the Petitioners, who are Public Undertakings. He also argued that Govt servants or employees of Public Undertakings or a Cooperative Society Bank do not fit in the definition of a "Consumer" as outlined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, consumer forum is not the appropriate venue for addressing grievance concerning retiral benefits, as this pertains to a service matter. He sought setting aside of the orders passed by the fora and Dismissal of the Complaint before the District Forum. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Matter of Dr.Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana & Ors., Civil Appeal No.5476 of 2013, decided on 11.07.2013 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“7. Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/ inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. (Vide: United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 22; Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537; and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213).

8. In Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) Thr. Lrs., (1990) 1 SCC 193, this Court, after placing reliance on large number of its earlier judgments particularly in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. K.S. Wadke & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 496; Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340; and Chandrika Misir & Anr. v. Bhaiyalal, AIR 1973 SC 2391 held, that a decree without jurisdiction is a nullity. It is a coram non judice; when a special statute gives a right and also provides for a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act and the Common Law Court has no jurisdiction; where an Act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in specified manner, “performance cannot be forced in any other manner.”

9. Law does not permit any court/tribunal/authority/forum to usurp jurisdiction on any ground whatsoever, in case, such a authority does not have jurisdiction on the subject matter. For the reason that it is not an objection as to the place of suing;, “it is an objection going to the nullity of the order on the ground of want of jurisdiction”. Thus, for assumption of jurisdiction by a court or a tribunal, existence of jurisdictional fact is a condition precedent. But once such jurisdictional fact is found to exist, the court or tribunal has power to decide on the adjudicatory facts or facts in issue. (Vide: Setrucharlu Ramabhadra Raju Bahadur v. Maharaja of Jeypore, AIR 1919 PC 150; State of Gujarat v. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2664; Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 4446; and Carona Ltd. v. M/s. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons, AIR 2008 SC 187). 10. The Act was enacted to provide for the better protection of interest of consumers, such as the right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property; the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices; and right to seek redressal against an unscrupulous exploitation of consumers, and further to provide right to consumer education etc. as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the Act.

11. Section 2 of the Act which is a definition clause defines the following as under:

“2(b) ‘Complainant’ means-

(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;

(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;

2(c) ‘complaint’ means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that-

(i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provider;

(ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects;

(iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect;

xx xx xx

2(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) [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 payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person; [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;

xx xx xx

2(g) ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;

2(o) ‘service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction], entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.”

Section 11 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum as:

“(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed [does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.”

  The aforesaid statutory provisions make it crystal clear that the Act is made to deal with the rights of consumers wherein marketing of goods, or “services” as defined under the Act have been provided. Therefore, the question does arise as to whether the Forum under the Act can deal with the service matters of government servants.

12.      In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225, this Court examined the issue as to whether a prospective buyer can be “consumer” under the Act, and held:

“The consumer as the term implies is one who consumes. As per the definition, consumer is the one who purchases goods for private use or consumption. The meaning of the word ‘consumer’ is broadly stated in the above definition so as to include anyone who consumes goods or services at the end of the chain of production. The comprehensive definition aims at covering every man who pays money as the price or cost of goods and services. The consumer deserves to get what he pays for in real quantity and true quality. In every society, consumer remains the centre of gravity of all business and industrial activity. He needs protection from the manufacturer, producer, supplier, wholesaler and retailer.

xx xx xx

  Therefore, it is after allotment, rights may arise as per the contract (Article of Association of Company). But certainly not before allotment. At that stage, he is only a prospective investor (sic in) future goods……There is no purchase of goods for a consideration nor again could he be called the hirer of the services of the company for a consideration. In order to satisfy the requirement of above definition of consumer, it is clear that there must be a transaction of buying goods for consideration under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the said Act. The definition contemplates the pre-existence of a completed transaction of a sale and purchase. If regard is had to the definition of complaint under the Act, it will be clear that no prospective investor could fall under the Act”.

13. In Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. Santosh Kumar Sahoo & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 3553, this Court resolved the issue as to whether the Forum under the Act had jurisdiction to entertain and allow a complaint filed by a person for correction of his date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate, observing that the impugned order was liable to be set aside because all the consumer forums failed to consider the issue of maintainability of the complaint in a correct perspective. Before the District Forum could go into the issue of correctness of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate of Respondent 1, it ought to have considered whether the so-called failure of the appellant to make correction in terms of the prayer made by Respondent 1 amounted to deficiency of service.

  The court remitted the matter to the District Forum to decide the issue of maintainability of the complaint.

14. This Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 93, considered the question as to whether a candidate can file a complaint before the District Forum under the Act raising any grievance regarding his examinations conducted by the Bihar School Examinations Board constituted under the Bihar School Examinations Board Act, 1952 and answered it in negative observing as under:

“The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intend to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer scripts, or furnishing of marksheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a ‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board.”

(See also: Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159).

15. In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhavani, AIR 2008 SC 2957, this Court dealt with the issue as to whether Dr. Padia's submissions regarding the non-applicability of the Act to the case of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - the person responsible for the working of a Pension Scheme, could be held to be a 'service giver' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, as it was neither a case of rendering of free service nor rendering of service under a contract of personal service so as to bring the relationship between the parties within the concept of 'master and servant'. The court held:

“In our view, the respondent comes squarely within the definition of 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant for implementation of the Scheme. The same is the case in the other appeals as well.”

16.      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 his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act.

17. 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.”

14.    In light of the legal precedent established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the Complainant does not qualify as a "Consumer" as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act because he was an employee of the Petitioners. The Consumer Fora, therefore, are not the suitable forums for addressing issues related to retiral benefits. 

15.    In view of the foregoing discussions, the instant Revision Petition No.1358 of 2018 is Allowed, and the orders dated 18.04.2018 passed by the learned State Commission and the order dated 02.07.2011 passed by the learned District Forum are set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed. Notwithstanding the same, the legal heirs of the deceased Complainant have the liberty to approach the appropriate Forum or Court to seek redress for their grievances in accordance with the law.

16.    There shall be no order as to costs. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.