Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1076/2014

Principel Govt. Sec. Sc. School, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sanjay Mehatar S/o sh. Sualal Mehatar - Opp.Party(s)

K.K. Garg

20 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

APPEAL NO: 1076 /2014

 

Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School,Sanganer Distt. Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Sanjay Mehtar s/o Late Sualal Mehtar r/o Plot no. 42, Near Sanjay Memorial School, Nahargarh Road, Purani Basti, Jaipur

 

Date of Order 20.4.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs. Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr. Liyakat Ali -Member

 

Mr.K.K.Garg counsel for the appellants

None present for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

2

 

DCF Jaipur IInd Jaipur dated 18.11.2014.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that the complainant's father Sualal was appointed as a sweeper in the office of opposite party no. 1 & 2 on 25.5.1992 and Sualal died on 22.5.1994. After his death payment of GPF, State Insurance and other pensioner benefits were not made to him. The complainant and his mother went to opposite party no.1 & 2 on numerous occasions but no action was taken. A consumer complaint was filed before the learned DCF. The opposite party no. 1 & 2 did not file any reply to the complaint and the opposite party no.3 stated that the complainant has not filed any documents for payment of GPF and State Insurance. After hearing both the parties the learned DCF directed that interest on GPF and State Insurance amount shall be paid till the date of payment is actually made. The learned DCF also directed that opposite party no.1 & 2 shall also consider other retiremental benefits given to the complainant like pension, family pension, compassionate appointment. It also directed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5000/- as costs.

 

The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that this

3

 

matter relates to the service matter and was outside the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. He argued that the complainant should have filed the complaint with Rajasthan Administrative Tribunal which has been constituted for this purpose. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted his written arguments.

 

We have considered the arguments of the respective counsels. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the dispute regarding GPF and payment of State Insurance is outside the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. These disputes definitely come under the consumer disputes and it has been held in a number of cases. The representative of the GPF Department conceded before the learned DCF that the payment of State Insurance & GPF has been made to the complainant but the interest was calculated till the date of death of Sualal. The learned DCF has directed that the interest shall be calculated till the date of payment. We find no error in the direction given by the learned DCF. This amount has been retained by the GPF Department and they are supposed to pay the interest till they made the payment of GPF and State Insurance to the complainant.

 

4

 

As regards consideration of other retiremental benefits like pension, family pension, compassionate appointment, we are of the view that these directions were outside the scope of the learned DCF. It was not right for the learned DCF to direct that the opposite parties shall consider sanction of pension, family pension or compassionate appointment to heirs. To that extent we set aside the directions given by the learned DCF.

 

As regards the compensation for mental agony, we are of the view that Sualal was appointed on the post of sweeper and after two years of appointment, he died. The Department had a moral and legal responsibility to inform the GPF & State Insurance Cepartment regarding his death and his survivers to apply for payment of the GPF and State Insurance. We however, accept the argument that GPF Department was not informed of his death, therefore, no payment could be made but opposite party no. 1 & 2 were within this knowledge and they are to have inform the department. It is deficiency on the part of opposite party no. 1 & 2 is proved. To that extent and against opposite party no.3 deficiency of service is proved to the extent that they did not calculate the interest of GPF and State Insurance till the date of payment. Therefore, the amount of compensation

 

5

 

awarded to the complainant is maintained and we do not wish to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned DCF.

 

The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm