Haryana

Jind

CC/16/74

Smt. Tarawati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sate Of Haryana Op1 And Distt. Social Welfare Officer Op2 And Admin. Market Committee Op3 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh R.R. Chahal

21 Jun 2016

ORDER

ORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 74 of 2016
   Date of Institution: 9.6.2016
   Date of final order: 21.6.2016 

Smt. Tarawati age 33 years w/o late Sh. Ramesh Kumar s/o Sh. Kartara r/o village Dohana Khera, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
State of Haryana through Collector, Jind, District Jind.
District Social Welfare Officer, Jind, District Jind.
Administrator Market Committee, Narwana, District Jind.

                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. R.R. Chahal Adv. for complainant.

ORDER:

    Brief facts of the complainant that complainant is wife of Sh. Ramesh Kumar who was  the agriculturist and doing the agriculture work in his field. Husband of complainant used to go in his field to save his crops from stray animals. On night 30.1.2014 her husband went in his field but  on 31.1.2014 he did not come back from his field. Upon this brother of husband of the complainant went in the field to know that why he did not return and he found that Ramesh Kumar brother of Krishan was lying  dead on the cot in the Varandah. After getting the information of death of her husband other family members also rushed there &
            Taravati Vs. State of Haryana etc.
                   …2…    
dead body of  her husband was brought in G.H. Narwana and the post-mortem was got conducted by the Medical Officer vide PMR No. SGA/PMR/2014/04 dated 31.1.2014. It is further alleged that the sole bread earner of family of the complainant  had died while saving his crops in his fields    . As such the complainant is entitled the claim under the Haryana Govt. Policy launched by the Govt. such like cases in which financial assistance is provided to the LRs of deceased farmer. Accordingly complainant has submitted claim application with the opposite party No.3 after  completing the all necessary formalities. But the opposite parties have rejected the claim against the law, Wherever the complainant is entitled the claim amount under the above said scheme launched by the Hr. Govt.
2.       In view of the facts of the complaint, it is clear that the complainant had not hire or avail of any service  for a consideration. We have gone through the definition of consumer  as defined in Setction 2(1) (d )  ( ii)  which reads as under:-
“ hires or avails of any services for  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”]
          The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.1079 of 2012 titled as Director General Social Justice and Empowerment Department & another Vs. Mamta Devi Allas 
            Taravati Vs. State of Haryana etc.
                   …3…
Mamta Sharma in which the Hon’ble National Commission held on the ground that the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the petitioner-authority as service provider because the Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Beema Yojna was a social welfare and benevolent scheme brought into force by Haryana State to protect the residents of the State in case of untimely death so that the family is not rendered altogether helpless after the death of the bread-earner of the family. He submits that no charge or fee or premium was payable by the person covered under the scheme and therefore both the for a below have erred in entertaining the complaint as a consumer dispute and answering the same. There appears to be force in this contention because for the above noted reasons, the case of the complainant would not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act firstly because the scheme by its very nature was a social welfare measure taken by the State without seeking any premium or charge for the same. 
    Going by the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the revision petition only to the extent and by holding that the dispute raised by the respondent-complainant could not have been entertained by consumer fora.
4.      In view of the above definition/ judgment cited above there is no document on the file that the complainant hired or availed of any service for paying any consideration. Hence, the complainant does not come under the definition of Consumer and hence the complaint is hereby dismissed being non maintainable in this Forum. However, it is made clear that complainant is at liberty to knock the 

 

            Taravati Vs. State of Haryana etc.
                   …4…    
door of the competent court of law, if so advised. Original documents be returned to the complainant after retaining the photo copy of the same. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under  the rule.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

                                          President,
    Member              Member                             DCDRF, Jind
                                          21.6.2016

        Taravati Vs. State of Haryana etc.

Present: Sh. R.R. Chahal Adv. for complainant.
        Arguments heard on the ground of  admissibility  of the complaint . Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint  is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 
                                                                            President,
    Member              Member                             DCDRF, Jind
                                                    21.6.2016