BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 07^th DAY OF JUNE 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay him a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for premature amount, the actual amount to be ascertained by OP-4, Rs.3,00,000/- towards cost since 1984, Rs.10,000/- towards legal notice, expenses etc., to quash the order of retirement since 1^st March 1984 and consider the further date of retirement to 1^st March 1988 and also to direct the OP-5 to provide him speedy relief as he is aged around 80 years and for cost.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant upon being selected joined, IMA, Dehra Dun and was commissioned in the Corps of Electrical & Mechanical Engineers on 12.06.1960.  In the contract envisaged service up to the age of 52 years and the complainant whose date of birth is 10.02.1933 and was to retire on 01.03.1985 with 2 years of antedate for promotion.  That on promotion as Lt Col (TS) he was entitled for benefits of extended service for 3 years from 52 years resulting in the date of retirement as on 01.03.1988 at the age of 55 years.  The promotion envisaged 3 years of continued service for officers of Arms resulting in retirement at the age of 51 years from 48 years, as per regulations in the year 1984.  On similar condition the complainant being from services ought to have retired at the age of 55 years after getting benefit of 3 years of extended service from the normal age of retirement of 52 years.  That the complainant was compulsorily retired at the age of 51 years instead of 58 years due to mistake of Executive Authorities who have jurisdiction to correct their own mistakes without any reference to any authority.  The order of retirement being premature is contrary to the statutory provisions opposed to constitution and legislature intents.  Thus deprived the complainant the benefits of service pay, gratuity, pension etc., for one year from 1984 to 1985 based on the contractual terms.  That the pension is a deferred payment for the services rendered to Government and deemed as property.  That the Government has thus with held the property of the complainant illegally and is liable to restore the same attracting the ‘Doctrine of Restitution’, as the Government has made unjust enrichment at the cost of the complainant who has been deprived of his dues for one year since 1984.

That the breach of terms is glaring as of now as the complainant was aged 51 years on the date of retirement though he was to retire on attaining age of 52 years.  Retiring the complainant prematurely at the age of 51 years instead of 52 years in violation of service conditions is ‘Invalid – ab initio’.  That the order of the retirement needs to be cancelled.  That as a pensioner and the beneficiary of Central Government the complainant would be a ‘consumer’ under the Act.

For the aforesaid reasons the complainant prays for an order directing the OPs to pay him a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for premature retirement, Rs.3,00,000/- towards cost since 1984, Rs.10,000/- towards legal notice, expenses etc., the actual amount has to be ascertained by OP-4, to quash the order of retirement since 1^st March 1984 and consider the future date of retirement to 1^st March 1984 and the cost of the proceedings.

3. In response to the notice issued the OPs appeared through advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

The complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts.  The relief sought for the complainant in respect of his retirement of age etc., cannot be entertained by this Forum.  That this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised by the complainant and this Forum cannot grant the relief sought for by the complainant.  The complainant should have approached the proper Forum to get the relief as sought in the complaint.  The Revision Petition No.4550/2010 filed before the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has been disposed off with liberty to the Opponents to work out their remedy before the appropriate court/Forum in accordance with law.

For the reasons mentioned above, OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and placed reliance on several documents as well as authorities.  The OPs did not prefer to adduce any evidence on their behalf.

5. On the rival contention of both the parties the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, various authorities relied by the complainant, averments made in the version and other materials placed on record.

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

8.  The complainant has sought the following relief in the complaint.

That in the interest of justice the Opp. Parties No.1 to 4 be directed to pay the complainant (1984 to 1985)

(a) Rs.15 (Fifteen) Lakhs as compensation for premature retirement (adhoc)

(b) The actual amount to be ascertained by Opp. Party No.4

(c) Rs.3.00 Lakhs towards cost since 1984.

(d) Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards legal notices, expenses etc.,

(e) Speedy justice is sought from Opp. Party No.5, the complainant being about 80 years, without relief since 1984.

(f) Quash the order of Retirement since 1^st March 1984.

(g) Consider the further date of retirement to 1^st March, 1988 in view of discrimination between the regulations between the officers of the Arms and services on promotion as Lt. Col. (TS) & recompose.

And

Grant an interim relief of Rs.Ten Lakhs immediately pending disposal of the complaint.

9. The sum and substance of the allegations made by the complainant is that, as per the service conditions that governed his appointment in the year 1960, he was to retire after attaining the age of 52 years, however in violation of the service conditions OPs have retired him on attaining the age of 51 prematurely.  Therefore as suffered huge loss in terms of gratuity, pension etc.  Further the complainant has sought the relief of quashing the order of the retirement and further sought a direction to the OPs to consider his further date of retirement to 1^st March 1988.

10. The learned advocate appearing for the OPs referring to the relief sought by the complainant vehemently argued that, the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ at all as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and the dispute raised is not a ‘Consumer’ Dispute and the complainant instead of approaching the competent authority has wrongly approached the Consumer Forum, therefore sought for dismissal of the complaint.  The complainant claims that he being pensioner and beneficiary of the Central Government is a consumer as defined in section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  However during the course of arguments the complainant failed to substantiate as to how he fits into the definition of Consumer as defined in section.2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act.  The definition of Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:

“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 payment, 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;

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment”.

11. As already stated above, the complainant is questioning his premature retirement and further seeking relief of quashing his order of retirement and also seeking relief of calculation of his retirement benefits taking into consideration the correct age of superannuation.  Looking to the status of the complainant and the dispute raised by him by any stretch of imagination he would not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Therefore, the dispute raised by the complainant also is not at all a ‘Consumer’ dispute.  This Forum has no jurisdiction at all to entertain a complaint like one on the hand and grant relief sought by the complainant.  The complainant placed reliance on certain authorities to substantiate his contention that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  Perused the said authorities.  None of the authorities relied upon by the complainant deal with an issue similar to the one involved in this complaint.  Looking from any angle the complainant would not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’.  Therefore he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for by him.  The complainant ought to have approached the competent Forum for the said reliefs.  Moreover the complainant has approached this Forum more than 30 years after the alleged premature retirement.  In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that, the complaint is not at all maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed at threshold.

12. Point No.2 - In view of our finding on point No.1 this issue does not survive for determination.

13. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency. 

14. Point No.3) In the result, we proceed to pass the following:  

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed with costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 07^th day of June 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 05.03.2015.

1. Lt Col. W.E Sathyanarayana

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties - Nil

Document produced by the Opposite party

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*