Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/437/2015

Life Insurance Corporation Of IndiaThe Manager (Legal), L.I.C. Of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh. Shyam Lal Verma S/o Sh. Jawahar Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Ramkalyan Sharma

22 Feb 2016

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 437 /2015

 

Life Insurance Corporation of India, 'Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai through its Chairman & ors.

 

Vs.

 

Shyamlal Verma s/o Jawahar Singh,Ex.LIC agent c/o Devi Singh, Behind Tourist Hotel Complex,Gowardhan Gate,Bharatpur at present village & Post Hantara,Tehsil Nadbai District Bharatpur.

 

Date of Order 22.2. 2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Ramkalyan Sharma counsel for the appellant

Mr.R.K.Sharma counsel for the respondent

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned DCF, Bharatpur dated 24.2.2015.

 

The contention of the appellant is that it is true that non-applicant was an agent with the appellant but Rs. 1 lakh gratuity was not admissible to him. As per the eligible rate he was entitled only for the gratuity of Rs. 16,259/- which has been rightly paid to him. Further his objection is that the respondent is not a 'consumer' and the District Forum was not having jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as regard to the payment of gratuity and appeal be allowed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that objection as regard to jurisdiction and maintainability has not been raised before the court below hence, they are deemed to be waived and he is entitled for Rs. 1 lakh gratuity which has rightly been allowed by the court below and no interference is needed.

 

3

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent was an agent with the appellant since January 1978 till November 2007 and he has claimed his gratuity in the original complaint.

 

The appellant has rightly relied upon II (2001 ) CPJ 517 Jayaswamy Vs. R.Thimmanna where the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that contract of personal services are excluded from the definition of service. Here also the complainant-respondent is neither purchaser nor he had hired any services on payment. He cannot be said to be a 'consumer' within the definition of S.2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act and when the complainant does not fall within the definition of 'consumer', the District Forum was not having any jurisdiction to examine the grievances of the complainant.

 

Here in the present matter it is explicitly clear that the complainant is not a 'consumer' as he has not hired any services from the appellant and in view of the law laid down in Jayaswamy's case the complaint is liable to be rejected.

4

 

The other contention of the appellant is that the District Forum has no jurisdiction as this is dispute as regard to payment of retiral benefit and reliance has rightly been placed on III ( 2013) CPJ 22 (SC) Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & ors. where the court has rightly held that government servant cannot raise any dispute regarding service conditions or for payment of gratuity or any other retiral benefit before any Forum under the Consumer protection Act and government servant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer'. In view of the law laid down in Jagmittar Sain (supra) the District Forum was not having any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and admittedly this was a dispute between the principal and agent as regard to payment of retiral benefit i.e. gratuity and on the point of jurisdiction the complaint is liable to be rejected.

 

As the matter has been heard on merits also, it will be proper to consider the merits of the case. The appellant has relied upon (Agents ) Regulations, 1972 framed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India where the eligible rate for gratuity means as under:

 

“(i) in the case of an agent who has worked on the

5

 

 

relevant date for fifteen agency years or more as an agent. 180^th part of the aggregate of the qualifying yearly renewal commission earned by him in the qualifying years out of the fifteen agency years immediately preceeding the relevant date; and...”

 

 

The plain reading of above goes to show that from the preceeding fifteen years from the relevant date are the qualifying years to calculate the gratuity and as per Ex. D 2 relied by both the parties the gratuity has been calculated taking note of the commission earned by the respondent in preceeding fifteen years from the relevant date and calculation comes to Rs.16,259/- which has been rightly calculated by the appellant.

 

The contention of the respondent is that he is eligible for Rs. 1 lakh gratuity but no basis for the same has been submitted before this court. Rs. 1 lakh is maximum permissible limit for payment of gratuity but admittedly gratuity will be calculated as per the eligible rate which has been quoted above and it has rightly calculated by the appellants. No fault could be found in the calculation.

 

In view of the above, the District Forum was not having

6

 

any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant was not 'consumer' within the meaning of relevant Act and further more gratuity has rightly been paid to the respondent. Hence, this appeal is liable to be allowed.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm