Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/192/2017

The President, Z.A.108, Pavattakudi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.Subramani, Rep by his agent R.Agatheeswaran & anr - Opp.Party(s)

S.Thiruvenkataswamy

07 Jun 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                        BEFORE :      Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH                              PRESIDENT

                                               Thiru R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.192/2017

(Against order in CC.NO.28/2014 on the file of the DCDRC, Thiruvarur)

 

DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

The President

Z.A.108, Pavattakudi Primary Agricultural

Co-operative Society Limited                                  M/s. Thiruvenkataswamy

Pavattakudi – 609 403                                                     Counsel for

Nanilam Taluk                                                     Appellant /2^nd Opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

 

1.       S. Subramani

          S/o. Sundaram

          Padmavathi Illam, Pillayar Koil Street

          Pavattakudi- 609 403

          Nanilam Taluk, Thiruvarur District

          Rep. By his Agent

          R.Agatheeswaran, Secretary

          Pavattakudi Primary Agricultural

             Cooperative Society Limited

          No.2, South Street, Madavilagam                 Served called absent

          Peralam, Thiruvarur District                   1^st Respondent / Complainant

 

2.       The Joint Registrar

          Co-operative Societies Regional Office           Served called absent

          Tiruvarur, Thiruvarur District                 2^nd Respondent / 1^st Opposite party

 

          The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 2^nd opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.23.3.2017 in CC.No.28/2014.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

 

ORDER

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

1.        This appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ 2^nd Opposite party as against the order dt.23.3.2017 passed by the District Commission, Thiruvarur, in CC.No.28/2014, in allowing the complaint. 

 

2.       For the sake of convenience parties are referred as per ranking before the District Commission.

 

3.       The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:

          The complainant was working as a Secretary in Pavattakudi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd.,  He retired from service from the said post on 30.4.2006.  It is the grievance of the complainant that a sum of R.30,664/- towards the gratuity and Rs.10400/- towards the arrears of Dearness Allowance totalling Rs.40,064/- has not been paid to him.  He had sent several letters, but there was no response.  On 11.5.2013 he had also lodged a complaint in the society.  On 14.5.2013, he had sent a complaint to the Joint Registrar and Sub-Registrar Thiruvarur.  The said complaints were not responded. Hence on 14.8.2013, again he sent a letter to the Joint Registrar, Thiruvarur, for which he received a reply stating that no amount payable to the complainant is pending, and it is further stated that when he was working as a Secretary in the society, he had deposited an excessive sum of Rs.18052/- in Employee Provident Fund Account.  Therefore, it is the complainant who only has to pay the amount to the society.  The said statement made in the letter dt.14.8.2013 is not correct, and even if there is any amount   payable by the complainant, to the society the same cannot be deducted from the pensionery benefits payable to him.  As on the date of filing of the complaint,  a sum of Rs.30,664/- towards the gratuity and a sum of Rs.10400/- towards Dearness Allowance, totalling Rs.41064/- was payable by the opposite parties.  Hence he filed a complaint, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the said sum alongwith compensation of Rs.25000/- and cost of Rs.3000/-. 

 

4.       The said case was resisted by the opposite parties by filing version as follows:

          The issue involved in this complaint is not a consumer dispute.  While the complainant was in service, he had availed all the earned eave, which was reflected in the attendance register maintained by the opposite party.  Further from the records maintained by the society, it could be seen that no amount is due to any of the employees from the society.  The society is in financial constrain.  Even if there is any amount due in respect of gratuity and Dearness allowance, the same cannot be claimed by raising a consumer dispute.  Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.       In order to prove the claim, alongwith proof affidavit 13 documents were filed on the side of the complainant before the District Commission, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A13 and 3 documents filed on the side of the opposite parties were marked as Ex.B1 to B3. 

 

6.       The District Commission after analysing the entire evidence, by placing reliance on Ex.B3-Aquitance Register, marked on the side of the opposite party, had come to the conclusion that in the said document, net amount payable was mentioned as Rs.1,06,107/-, and thereafter a sum of Rs.30664/- was deducted from the said amount under the head “dues under suspense” but no proper explanation was given by the opposite parties for the said deduction.  Further the District Commission has come to the conclusion from the records that a sum of Rs.10400/- towards dearness allowance was also not paid to the complainant.  Thus directed the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.41064/- alongwith compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-.    Aggrieved over the said order, the 2^nd opposite party is before this commission as appellant, praying to set aside the order of the District Commission. 

 

7.       The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before this commission that Ex.B1- Service Register marked on side of the opposite party shows that the complainant had availed all the benefits from the society.  Absolutely there were no arrear to be paid for the earned leave to the complainant.  Without properly seeing Ex.B1, the District Commission had mechanically passed the order.   Further, the relationship between the opposite party and the complainant is only as a master and servant  relationship,  and there is no consumer relationship.  He also further submitted that the complaint itself is not maintainable against the opposite parties. 

 

          In support of his contentions, the learned counsel also had relied upon a judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Lila Ram, wherein it has been that “the matter of claiming retrial benefits from his employer, government servant does not fall under the definition of Consumer under Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act.   

          He had also relied upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5476 of 2013 held in Dr.Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Dir.Health Services, Haryana & Ors., and submitted that the issue involved in this case is not a consumer dispute. 

          The learned counsel also would further submit that the complainant had retired from the service on 30.4.2006, whereas he had filed this complaint before the District Commission only on 13.10.2014, almost after 8 years.  Therefore this complaint is also hit by limitation.  Thus he sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

8.        Keeping the submissions in mind, we have carefully gone through the documents placed on record.  The contentions of the appellants are two fold

          1.       The issue involved in the complaint is not a consumer dispute

          2.       The complaint is barred by limitation

 

9.       POINT NO.1:

With regard to the first ground, the learned counsel would submit that the relationship between the opposite parties and the complainant is a master and servant relationship, and hence this dispute cannot be tried before the consumer fora.  In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant had drawn our attention to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5476/2013 held in Dr.Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Dir.Health Services Haryana & Ors., in which it was held that “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 Sec.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”.  

          In view of the above decision, it is quite clear that the relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties cannot be considered to be a consumer relationship to attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, it is well settled that this dispute cannot be tried before the Consumer Commissions.  This point is answered in favour of the opposite parties.

 

10.     POINT NO.2:

          The next issue raised is with regard to the limitation of the complaint filed by the complainant.

          As seen from Ex.B3, Aquitance Register, the complainant had retired from his service on 30.4.2006, whereas, the consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission only on 13.10.2014.  But no valid reason was furnished by the complainant for the long delay of eight years to file the complaint.  It is seen that the opposite parties have not raised the issue with regard to the limitation before the District Commission.  But while filing the appeal, they have raised this question of limitation.  Since the question of law can be raised any stage, this point has to be considered.   On perusal of the records, we are of the considered opinion that though the District Commission had not dealt with this point, the delay of eight years in filing the complaint cannot be brush aside.  As per the records the cause of action arose on 30.4.2006, i.e., the day of his superannuation, therefore he ought to have filed the complaint as early as on 29.4.2008, whereas he filed the complaint only on 13.10.2014.  Therefore, without any hesitation it could be concluded that the complaint is time barred and thus complaint is hit by Sec.24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  This point is answered accordingly. 

 

11.     The learned counsel also would further submit that as seen from Ex.B2, the Leave Account Register, the complainant had only 27 days of earned leave at his credit.  Moreover, the complainant himself is not clear that what the exact amount to be payable to him.  This cannot be decided in a summary manner before this commission. 

          Therefore, looking at any angle, there is no merit in the complaint, which deserves to be dismissed.  The District Commission, without considering all these aspects had allowed the complaint, which is liable to be set aside, accordingly set aside.

 

12.     In the result, the appeal is allowed, by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Thiruvarur, in CC.No.28.2014 dt.23.3.2017, and the complaint is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost throughout.

          The Registry is directed to discharge the mandatory deposit, made by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt, in favour of the appellant.   

 

 

 

  R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                          R. SUBBIAH

                      MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT