Haryana

StateCommission

A/676/2016

STATE OF HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH KUMAR CHAWLA - Opp.Party(s)

GOVT.PLEADER

06 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                       

First Appeal No.676 of 2016

Date of Institution:21.07.2016

                                                          Date of Decision: 06.03.2017

 

1.      Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Faridabad (East), Bikri Kar Bhawan, Sector 12, Faridabad, Haryana 121007.

2.      Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Plot No.1-3, Vanijya Bhawan, Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana.

3.      The Financial Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana, Excise and Taxation Department, Civil Secretariat, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

     …..Appellants

                                                Versus

 

Suresh Kumar Chawla, r/o H.No. F-8, Roop Enclave Nagar, Colony, Sector 82, Faridabad, Haryana.

         …..Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Ashok Pasricha Government Pleader for the Appellants.

                   Mr.Vijay Pal, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It was alleged by complainant that he was covered under medi claim policy of Government of Haryana under Open category as per Haryana Government Rules and Rs.500/- are deducted every month from the pension amount for that purpose.  After accident he remained admitted at  Metro Heart Institute, Faridabad and spent Rs. 1,86,382/- on his treatment. After more than two years O.Ps. refunded Rs.1,42,846/-.  It is deficiency in service and O.Ps. be directed to pay Rs.43,536/- more alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of submission of application  i.e. 21.01.2013 till realization besides compensation to the tune of Rs.One lac for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that complaint was not maintainable before Consumer Forum and he should have filed a suit for recovery before civil court. There was no relationship of consumer and service provider in between them. Re-imbursement facility is given to an employee and they cannot claim interest on delayed payment.  The amount was reimbursed as per PGI rates. The time was consumed in examining the bills as per PGI rates and that is why there was delay. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Faridabad (In Short “District forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 11.01.2016 and directed as under:-

“Resultantly, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay, jointly & severally, interest @ 9% p.a. from 18.07.2013 to 04.01.2015 on sanctioned amount of Rs.142846/- alongwith Rs.2200/- on account of mental agony and harassment as well as Rs.1100/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within forty five days from the date of receipt of this order.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellants-O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that  when he spent Rs.1,86,382/- on his treatment the O.Ps. were liable to pay the same, but, they paid only Rs.1,42,846/- and that too after  long delay. In this way there is deficiency in service and learned District Forum rightly granted the compensation.  He is covered by the definition of consumer as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition NO.3962 of 2012 titled as Union of India Vs. Sh.B.M.Singh decided on 17.09.2014.

7.      This argument is of no avail. Complainant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws because in that case an employee subscribe to RELH (Railway employees Liberalised Health Scheme), whereas in the present case the complainant is seeking reimbursement from the government in accordance with the rules governing as service condition/post retirement matters and he does not fall within the definition of consumer rendered by his former employee. When he is not consumer  he cannot ask for compensation through consumer fora. It is opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Dr. Health Services, Haryana and others 2013 (3) CPC 1 as under:-

“The act was enacted to provide better protection of interest of consumers, such as the right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property; the right to be informed about the quality, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, to  protect the consumer against unfair trade practices; and right to seek redressal against  an unscrupulous exploitation of consumers, and further to provide right to consumer education etc. as is evidence from the statement of objects and reasons of the Act. Government servant does not fall under the definition of consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) ii of the Act.”

8.      Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect.  Resultantly impugned order dated  11.01.2016 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside.  Hence complaint is dismissed and appeal is allowed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.18,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

March 06th, 2017		Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.