Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This is an appeal filed by the Union of India represented by Central Railway, against the judgement and award passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Thane in Consumer Complaint No.96/2004 decided on 31st July, 2004. While allowing the complaint partly the District Forum directed Railway to refund `1,30,721/- from the recovery made by Railways from the Complainant and also directed Railways to pay `10,000/- by way of compensation and `3,000/- towards costs, as such Union of India/Railways have filed this appeal.
(2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:
Complainant was the employee of Opponents railway who retired from service on 31.05.2002. During his service was transferred from Central Railway to Western Railway, he was provided quarter at Thakurli and he was paying monthly rent. He was also provided with electricity to the said tenement and on retirement of the Complainant, Opponent paid him provident fund, gratuity and other dues but after deducting electricity charges and therefore he filed consumer complaint claiming refund of `1,30,721/- and also claiming amount of `10,00,000/- towards mental harassment and refund of excess recovery of `1,12,200/- and also claimed interest @18% per annum on the excess amount recovered from him besides costs of the complaint.
(3) Opponent filed written version and defended its action. It admitted that for seven years the Complainant had not paid any electricity bills though he was occupying Government Railway quarter. Railways pleaded that Complainant himself was overall in-charge of Electricity Department of Mumbai Division and therefore, he managed to stay in the quarter without paying any electricity charges. The Railway also took objection that the consumer complaint could not be entertained since it was dispute between the employer and the employee and Complainant should have gone to appropriate tribunal instead of approaching this Forum under Consumer Protection Act but same was turned down by one line order by the Ld.District Forum. The Forum also held that the Opponent was rendering service to the Complainant since electricity supply was made through the electric meters installed by the Opponent and therefore the consumer complaint could lie in the District Forum. The District Forum held that it was the legal duty of the Opponent to issue bills from time to time. Since bills were not issued and served on Complainant and since no arrears were demanded till he retired directing to recover amount of `1,12,200/- from the Provident Fund, gratuity amount of the Complainant was erroneous and therefore, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed railways to refund amount of `1,30,721/- recovered towards unpaid electricity charges. Aggrieved by this order railways has filed this appeal.
(4) We heard submissions of Advocate Mr.A.N. Samant for the Appellant and G.B. Ansari a/w Advocate L.S. Shetty for the Respondent.
(5) It was contended by Advocate A.N. Samant that order passed by the District forum is per se bad in law and cannot be allowed to sustain in law in as much as Complainant had not paid electricity charges for the consumption he made while he was occupying government railway quarter at Thakurli. He was the overall in-charge of electricity department of Mumbai Division of the Central Railway, so he could manage to stay in the quarter provided to him and consumed the electricity without paying any charges. At the time of retirement this fact came to the notice of railway administration and therefore, the amount of `1,30,721/- was recovered from the retirement benefits payable to the Respondent by the Railways. The action of Railways in deducting the amount towards electricity charges not paid by the Respondent was just and proper and there was no consumer dispute involved. This argument was countered opposed strongly by Advocate G.B. Ansari and Advocate Mr.Shetty for the Respondent.
(6) However, we are of the view that filing of consumer complaint by the Respondent against the employer for recovery of unpaid electricity charges is per se bad in law and the District Forum erred in law in entertaining the complaint much less decreeing the complaint in favour of the Complainant. The dispute between the employer and the employee even in respect of electricity charges, water charges or municipal taxes is the dispute which have got to be decided by the internal mechanism by approaching higher authorities. The railway is not rendering the services to its employees. If Railway is providing quarters to its employees with facility of water connection, electricity connection etc. these charges are payable by the occupier of the government quarter and if, occupier of the government quarter or employee has not paid the charges it is recoverable in lump-sum at the time of his retirement while making payment of retirement dues. There was no question of any consumer dispute involved in such matter, which is between employee and employer. We reiterate that when railway is offering the quarter to its employees it is not rendering service. It is the beneficial step taken by the railways to give employees the Government quarter in and around Mumbai City where prices of hiring flats and houses are too high for the railway employees to take them on rent. From the view of employees welfare for the benefit of employees railway is providing quarters to a few officers on minimum rent and they have to pay consumption charges like water charges, electricity charges, conservancy charges till they are in possession of the quarters. Therefore, the order passed by the Forum entertaining the complaint and passing award is appearing to be bad in law when this was a purely dispute between the employer and the employee. The award passed by the District Forum will have to be quashed and set aside since we reiterate that this was not a consumer dispute at all and railway was not providing any service to the Respondent during his stay in Railway quarter at Mumbai. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow this appeal. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands Allowed.
(ii) Impugned award and judgement passed on 31st July, 2004 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Thane in Consumer complaint No.96/2004 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) In the result, consumer complaint stands dismissed. However, we make it clear that Respondent may approach any other authority to ventilate his grievances, if any.
(iv) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 25th April, 2012.
