1.     The State of Haryana, through the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh.

2.     The Director of Employment, Haryana, SCO No.17, Sector 7, Chandigarh

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Surinder Kumar Mittal, H.No. 306, Sector 12, Panchkula.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:Sh. Ajay Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

“ In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is Allowed qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed:-

[a]   To pay the actual entitlement and amount of personal pay, since 20.04.2003 the date of his retirement, along with interest @9% p.a. when each such entitlement became due towards him;

[b]   To pay Rs.20,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]  To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

 The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] of para 8 above, instead of 9% p.a. & the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] of para 8 above, too, shall carry interest @18% p.a., from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-“. 

2.           

3.             

4.           

5.             

6.           

7.           

8.           For proper decision of this question, the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) and Section 2(1)(o), defining the ‘consumer’ and ‘service’ 

“(d) "Consumer" means any person who, -

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii)[hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other then the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]; Added by Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.03.2003.

[Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause "commercial purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;]

Section 2(1)(o) defines service as under:-

(o) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential 16[users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, Financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, 17[housing construction] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.”

9.            "service" means service of any description which was madeavailable to potential users and included, but not limited to, the provision of facilities, in connection with banking, Financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information,   

10.        , the appellant/complainant who was a Medical Officer, in the State of Haryana, and, as such, a public servant took voluntary retirement, on 28.10.1985. According to him, he had not been paid all his retiral benefits. He filed a Consumer Complaint, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad, which was dismissed, vide order dated 24.3.2000, on the ground, that no deficiency, in rendering service was proved. The First Appeal, filed against the said order of the District Forum, was  

7. Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/ inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. (Vide:United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIRSmt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR1978 SC 22;Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr., AIRKondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR).

8.In Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) Thr. Lrs.,, this Court, after placing reliance on large number of its earlier judgments particularly inPremier Automobiles Ltd. v. K.S. Wadke & Ors.,Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIRheld, that a decree without jurisdiction is a nullity. It is a coram non judice; when a special statute gives a right and also provides for a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act and the Common Law Court has no jurisdiction; where an Act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in specified manner, “performance cannot be forced in any other manner.”

9. Law does not permit any court/ tribunal/authority/forum to usurp jurisdiction on any ground whatsoever, in case, such a authority does not have jurisdiction on the subject matter. For the reason that it is not an objection as to the place of suing;, “it is an objection going to the nullity of the order on the ground of want of jurisdiction”. Thus, for assumption of jurisdiction by a court or a tribunal, existence of jurisdictional fact is a condition precedent. But once such jurisdictional fact is found to exist, the court or tribunal has power to decide on the adjudicatory facts or facts in issue. (Vide:Setrucharlu Ramabhadra Raju Bahadur v. Maharaja of Jeypore, AIR 1919 PC 150;State of Gujarat v. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Anr., AIRHarshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. & Anr., AIRCarona Ltd. v. M/s. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons, AIR).

10. The Act was enacted to provide for the 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, quantity, 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 evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the Act.

11.         decided by a Four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, on 13.12.2002, as also in, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

12.         13.        ,, decided on 20.10.2005, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in support of his contention, that he fell within the definition of a consumer and, as such, the Consumer Complaint was maintainable, before the Consumer Fora. The facts and circumstances of the cases, referred to in this paragraph, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case, and, as such, no help could be drawn by the respondent/complainant, from the principle of law, laid down therein. Even otherwise, in view of the principle of law, laid down, in, decided on 11.07.2013, by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, holding that a Government Servant or a retired Government Servant did not fall within the definition of a consumer, when he claims retiral benefits or other service benefits, and, therefore, the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable, any principle of law, laid down to the contrary, in the cases cited by the respondent/complainant, shall not hold the field. The submission of the respondent/complainant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

14.