Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/156/2014

LABOUR OFFICER - Complainant(s)

Versus

R. KRISHNAN - Opp.Party(s)

T. RABI KUMAR

12 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                                     BEFORE   HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI    PRESIDENT                                        

                                                        THIRU.J. JAYARAM                                         JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                                        TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                      MEMBER

F.A.  156/2014

[Against the Order in  C.C No.28/2012 dated 25.03.2014 on the file of the DCDRF, Nagapattinam]

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF march 2015

1. The Labour Officer,

    Social Welfare Scheme,

    Nagpattinam – 611 011

2. The Secretary,

    Tamil Nadu Construction Labour Welfare Board,

    Valuvarkottam High Road,

    Nungambakkam,

    Chennai – 600 034.

3. The District Collector,

    District Collector’s Office,

    Nagapattinam – 611 003.                           ..  Appellants/Opposite parties

                                                     Vs

R. Krishnan,

s/o Ramaiyan,

Vadkattalai,

Vedharanyam Taluk                                       .. Respondent/Complainant      

Counsel for Appellants/Opp.parties              :  Mr. T. Ravikumar

For Respondent                                            :  In person 

                This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 04.12.2014  and on hearing the arguments of the appellant’s counsel, and upon perusing the  material records, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      This appeal is filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Nagapattinam in CC  28/2012, dated 25.03.2014  allowing the complaint.

2.   The case of the complainant is that he is a construction worker and member of the Tamil Nadu Construction Labour Welfare Board vide Membership No. 11574 right from the year 1997. He has paid the membership fee for 1994 to 2011 @ Rs.30/- He has been regularly paying the prescribed fees of Rs. 25/- every two years. He has attained age of 60 years on 08-05-2008 and he applied for pension with the 2^nd opposite party through the 1^st opposite party on 26-11-2010. The 1^st opposite party has replied that the complainant is not eligible for pension as he has not renewed his membership in time and he has not been member of the Welfare Board continuously for 5 years. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for repudiation of his claim for pension and has sought direction to the opposite parties to sanction pension on and from 08-05-2008, compensation and costs. Hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to sanction the pension with effect from 8.5.2008, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and hardship and to pay Rs.3000/- towards litigation expenses.

3.  The contention of the opposite parties in the written version is that as per Rule 13 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Construction Workers) Welfare Scheme 1994, a worker who is continued to be such worker for continuous period of not less than 5 years alone is eligible for the pension.  The complainant has renewed his membership with delay and hence he could not be said to have been a member for the continuous period of 5 years and therefore his claim for pension is rightly rejected by the 1^st opposite party and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.   The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint and passed an order directing the 1^st opposite party to sanction the pension to the complainant under clause 13 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Manual workers (Construction Workers) social Security and Welfare Scheme 1994 from the date of his eligibility i.e., from 8.5.2008 on wards and to pay the entire arrears of pension to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order failing which the said arrears of pension shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum 8.5.2008 till the date of payment and if the opposite party fails to pay the pension arrears within the period of 60 days from the date of this order all the opposite parties shall also be liable jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship and inconvenience caused to the complainant.

5.  Aggrieved by the impugned order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

6.  The appellants contend that mere payment of fee for registration or payment of late fee would not make the respondent a consumer. On the other hand the respondent contends that plea of non-applicability of the Consumer Protection Act taken by the appellants has to be rejected on account of the fact that the 2^nd appellant, who is the person responsible for the Pension Scheme, must be held to be a 'service provider' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. In support of his contention he relies on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Vs

Bhavani

reported in AIR 2008 SC 2957.  The said citation squarely applies to the present case in hand.  A reading of the definitions of 'consumer' and 'service' clearly shows that the scope and ambit of the above two terms are wide enough to take within their fold  like the respondent herein and the service rendered by the Board. The word 'service' cannot be given a restrictive or narrow meaning. It has to be given a wider connotation. It takes within its fold service of any description which is made available to potential users in the field of banking, financing, etc. Any delay in disbursement of pension should be viewed seriously. If there is no justifiable reason for the procrastination, the officers responsible for the laches should not be spared.

Unless there is accountability, lethargy and indifference will prevail. The Consumer Protection Act, is a milestone in the history of socio economic legislation and is directed towards achieving public benefit and on a plain reading of the provisions unaided by any external aid of interpretation it applies to the case before us. The legislative intention is thus clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The test, therefore, is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by it is service or even facility. The officer who is rendering statutory service on the basis of rules and regulations by charging fee he would be liable to be proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because complainant avails of the services by paying statutory fees.  The concept of sovereign function has undergone changes and in a welfare state, where the activities of the government extend to several spheres, the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign for the purpose of immunity has largely disappeared as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

                                                                                        Chairman, Railway Board

vs.

Chandrima Das

reported in (2000) 2 SCC 465.   As such we are not inclined to accept the contention of the appellants that that they are discharging sovereign functions.

7.     Therefore we are of the view that the respondent comes squarely within the definition of 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), in as much as, by becoming a member of the Tamil Nadu Construction Labour Welfare Board, and contributing to the same. The complainant was availing of the services rendered by the opposite parties 1 and 2 for implementation of the Scheme.Therefore we hold that the complaint filed before the District Forum is maintainable.

8.   The appellants further contend that the respondent has not been a member of the scheme for continuous 5 years period and hence he is not eligible for pension. The respondent had strongly contended that as per  G.O. MS. No. 36 dated 28-02-2011 he is eligible for pension  relying upon  Clause 13 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Construction Workers) Welfare Scheme 1994 which reads as under

“13 (1) Eligibility : - Every registered manual worker who has completed 60 years of age is eligible for pension”

Perusal of the above makes it clear that the respondent/complainant is eligible for pension as he has registered with the appellants and had completed 60 years of age. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the respondent /complainant is eligible for pension.

9. The appellants have contended that the 3^rd opposite party ie., the District Collector has no role in the dispute and he is not a necessary party to the proceedings. On perusal of records we find that the 3^rd opposite party has no role in the case and we are inclined to accept the contentions of the appellants in this regard and accordingly the complaint has to be dismissed as against the 3^rd opposite party. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to reduce the conditional interest from 12 % to 9% p.a.,. As far as the award of conditional compensation for mental agony is concerned, we feel that there is no need for granting such compensation. Otherwise there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum

         In the result the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified as follows : -

 

       (i)  the 1^st opposite party is directed to sanction the pension to the complainant under Clause 13 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Construction Workers) Social Security and Welfare scheme 1994 from 08-05-2008 with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum till payment

      (ii)  the complaint is dismissed as against the 3^rd opposite party 

     (iii) the order of the District Forum to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards conditional compensation for mental agony is hereby set aside

     (iv) The 1^st opposite party shall pay costs of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainant in the appeal

 

   P.BAKIYAVATHI               J. JAYARAM                         R.REGUPATHI

      MEMBER                   JUDICIAL MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

INDEX; YES/ NO

VL/D;/PJM