BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 17 of 05.01.2015 Date of Decision: 16.09.2016.
Ajit Singh, aged 65 years (Retired Inspector), Punjab Roadways, resident of village Rajgarh, P.O. Machhiwara, District Ludhiana (Punjab).
..… Complainant
Versus
- The Director, State Transport Punjab, Jeewandeep Building, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
- The Secretary, State Transport Punjab, Jeewandeep Building, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
MS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Satish Sharma, Advocate.
For Ops : Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Law officer.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant, a retired Inspector from office of OP3 filed complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) by claiming that he was operated for eye treatment in Poly Eye Hospital, 531, HIG (L), Jamalpur, Ludhiana. Thereafter, complainant submitted medical reimbursement bill of Rs.15,145/-, but same has not been duly approved and payment not released. Complainant personally approached OP1 many times, but no satisfactory reply was received and as such, after serving notice through counsel Sh. Satish K. Sharma, Advocate and by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, reimbursement of above said amount of Rs.15,145/- along with interest @18% per annum sought. Besides compensation for mental harassment and financial loss of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- claimed.
2. In joint written statement filed by Ops, it is pleaded, interalia, as if the present complaint has become in fructuous because complainant has received the payment on 31.03.2015. The reimbursement bill submitted by complainant was sent to Civil Surgeon for verification on 24.04.2014 and said Civil Surgeon after verification submitted report that bill can be passed for amount of Rs.10,900/- only. Admittedly, complainant retired as Inspector from office of OP3 and his pension disbursed through District Treasury Office, Ludhiana. It is claimed that letter was written to OP1 for release of the budget in the head 2235, but same not received till date. Due to long departmental procedure, payment has been delayed. It is claimed that complainant has no cause of action. Each and every other averment of complaint denied.
3. Complainant to prove his case, tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C10 and then closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, Law officer of OPs along with Ms. Kulwinder Kaur closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. RA of Smt. Kulwinder Kaur along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R4.
5. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments heard. Record gone through carefully.
6. First and foremost contention of Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Law officer of Ops is that the complainant is not the consumer because he has not availed the services under contractual obligation. Rather reimbursement of medical bill sought by complainant as an employee of Ops and dispute of retiral benefit between employer and employee does not fall within ambit of a consumer dispute. To buttress these contentions, law officer has placed reliance of ratio of cases titled as Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs Director Health Services, Haryana and others 2014(1) CLR 667 as well as Maharashtra State Electricity Board and representatives Vs Madhukar Vithal Kale (since deceased) through LRs and others I(2010) CPJ 20 (NC). After going through ratio of these cases, it is made out that a Government servant cannot approach any of the Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Act for any of the retiral benefit like gratuity, GPF etc. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (Supra) held specifically in para no.16 that dispute regarding service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of retiral benefits of Government Employee cannot be raised before Consumer Forum because the Government servant does not fall in definition of a consumer laid down in Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act. Such Government servant is entitled to claim the retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose by approaching the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court, is also ratio of the above cited case. As benefit of medical reimbursement is a benefit regarding the service conditions of Government Employee and services of employees of Punjab Roadways governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules and as such, certainly complainant is not a consumer, due to which, consumer complaint is not maintainable. Counsel for complainant unable to show any law to the contrary and as such, in view of above discussion, complaint merits dismissal with observation that complainant may approach Civil Court or any other appropriate Forum. Besides, amount of Rs.10,900/- has already been disbursed to the complainant is the submission of Law Officer and for that purpose, he has placed on record photostat copy of duplicate pay order, which is electronic replica of the original pay order. Perusal of the same reveals as if through entry No.51114, amount of Rs.10,900/- disbursed to the complainant through State Bank of India.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed, but with observation that complainant may approach the Civil Court or any other appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance. No order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Vinod Bala) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:15.09.2016.
Gobind Ram.
