Complainant Sheetal Minhas through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.19,50,000/- on account of murder of her husband and also be directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as harassment, mental pain and agony including Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that on 19.8.2015 her husband was murdered by opposite party No.1 at Dena Bank Dhariwal. It was pleaded that the husband of the complainant was working as Branch Manager in Dena Bank Dhariwal and on 19.8.2015 at around 12.30 P.M. the brother-in-law of the deceased received information that husband of the complainant had been murdered by opposite party no.1 who was posted as security guard at above named Bank. It was pleaded that opposite party No.1 was appointed by opposite party No.2 for the safety and security of the Bank and its employees for which opposite party no.2 received Rs.16,000/- per month as consideration from the opposite party No.4 for the services rendered by them. It was further pleaded that FIR No.93 dated 19.8.2015 U/s 302 IPC, 25-27-54-59 Arms Act was registered against the opposite party No.1 at Police Station Dhariwal on the statement of Sh.Sanjay Singh brother-in-law of the deceased. It was also pleaded that post mortem of deceased was conducted at Civil Hospital Gurdaspur by the board of doctors. It was next pleaded that husband of the complainant was working as Branch Manager and at the time of death the salary of the deceased was Rs.60,000/- per month and due to the murder of husband complainant had suffered pecuniary and non pecuniary damages and the trial of murder against opposite party No.1is pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. It was pleaded that opposite parties no.1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the loss of life, love and affection and irreparable loss suffered by the complainant on account of murder of her husband by the opposite party No.1, hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties. Opposite party no.2 appeared through his counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party no.2 because complainant is not consumer of the opposite party no.2 and as such opposite party no.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant; complainant had not come to the Ld. Forum with clean hands and had suppressed the true and material facts from the Hon’ble Forum; that the remedy available with the complainant was to file a Civil Suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction and not to file the present complaint and opposite party No.2 is not liable for any illegal act done by its employee in his private capacity. On merits, it was stated that on 18.8.2015 at 12.26 P.M. an E-mail was received by opposite party No.2 from the Branch Manager of Dena Bank Dhariwal that he was not satisfied with the duty/work of Armed Guard i.e. opposite party No.1 and he wanted his transfer from the said branch of the Bank with immediate effect and on receipt of the above said E-mail an immediate action was taken by opposite party No.2 and informed the Branch Manager of the above named Bank regarding the replacement of opposite party No.1 and in place of opposite party No.1 Sh.Prabhjit Singh was deputed and information regarding this was sent to Branch Manager Dena Bank Dhariwal on the same day i.e. 18.8.2015 at 12.49 P.M. by the opposite party No.2 and as such on the alleged day of occurrence opposite party No.1 was not on duty at Dena Bank Dhariwal due to which opposite party No.2 was not liable for any illegal acts done by its employee in his private capacity when he was relived from his duty on 18.8.2015. It was stated that complainant was compensated by opposite party No.4 by giving employment on compassionate ground. It was admitted that opposite party No.1 was appointed by opposite party No.2 for the safety of the Bank and its employees and Rs.16,000/- per month was received by opposite party no.2 from the opposite party No.4. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed that complaint is false, frivolous and without any merits and the same is not maintainable in this Hon’ble Forum as complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party No.2 and as such complaint against opposite party No.2 may kindly be dismissed with costs.
4. Opposite party No.1 had not appeared and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.5.2016. Opposite party No.4 had appeared through his counsel but failed to file any reply and was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.6.2016.
5. Complainant had tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Sh.Sanjay Singh Ex.C2 along with documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C9 and closed her evidence.
6. Sh.Hajur Singh Supervisor had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-2/1 and counsel for the opposite party no.2 had also tendered into evidence documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party no.2.
7. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) that has somehow prompted the present complaint. We find that the complainant’s deceased husband (Subash Minhas) had been the officer employee of Dena Bank (the Central Government Undertaking Bank) and was posted at its Dhariwal (Gurdaspur) Branch at the time of the unfortunately sad incident resulting into his death (murder) at the hands of opposite party # 1 Sharanjit Singh @ Bittu (hereinafter, for short ‘OP1’) who was posted there as an ‘Armed Guard’ (on temporary basis) by his employer opposite party # 2 (the OP2 Agency) who were approved providers of ‘Armed/Un-Armed Guards’ at the Bank Branches. The OP1 was reporting for ‘duty’ to the deceased Manager who somehow was annoyed with his ‘non-punctuality/indiscipline’ etc and had sought his replacement (Ex.OP2/2) on 18.08.2015 that was instantly provided (Ex.OP2/3) by the OP2 agency and the other Armed Guard was to report on duty on 20.08.2015. However, in the meantime, the OP1 Guard on 19.08.2015 getting ‘furiously’ aggrieved at his ouster (from Dhariwal Branch) fired at the Branch Manager who succumbed to the shot-gun injuries. The requisite FIR # 93/2015 (Ex.C3) stands registered at the PS Dhariwal and the regular murder trial has since been continuing before the District and Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. In the meantime, the widow of the deceased Branch Manager has preferred the present consumer complaint seeking compensation etc under the applicable consumer laws.
8. We find the OP2 Agency (Service Providers) & also the OP1 (being employee of OP2) did hold a high degree of liability/responsibility to respect/safeguard and also to protect not only the ‘consumer rights’ of the Bank employees but also the other precious legal rights (such as: right to life & liberty, right to safe working environment etc) with the opposite party # 4 Bank (employer). However, the heinous crime committed by the OP1 Guard (in his individual personal capacity) has faded away the infringement of consumer rights. The criminal courts do award suitable ‘compensation’ to the ‘victims’ in deserving cases but under the applicable statute. We are of the considered opinion that in the present instance the more dominant inter-se relation between the ‘victim’ and the ‘accused’ has been that of ‘co-workers’ and not that of ‘consumer vis-à-vis service provider’. Further, even if there existed somewhat statutory consumer relationship with the OP2 Agency it shall not be liable for the ‘criminal’ act of its employee committed as an outcome of personal ‘animosity’ and/or misunderstanding etc. Lastly, the OP4 Bank may be held responsible/liable to provide safe and secure working environment to its employees but only under the applicable laws and certainly not under the consumer laws.
9. Finally, in the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint does not fulfill the statutory pre-requisites of ‘maintainability’ under the applicable C P Act and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs.
10. The complainant shall also be at liberty to pursue her sought after and/or other relief(s) under the available legal remedy of her choice or advice.
- Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After
compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
AUG 23, 2016 Member.
*YP*
