Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/410/2012

LABOUR WELFARE OFFICER - Complainant(s)

Versus

THANGAVELU - Opp.Party(s)

A. THIRUMARAN

12 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                    BEFORE   HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI    PRESIDENT                                        

                      THIRU.J. JAYARAM                                          JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                      TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                      MEMBER

F.A.  410/2012

[Against the Order in C.C No.22/2011 dated 14.09.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Nagapattinam]

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF MARCH 2015

1. The Labour Welfare Officer,

    Social Welfare Scheme,

    Nagpattinam – 611 011

2. The Secretary,

    Tamil Nadu Construction Labour Welfare Board,

    No.8, Valuvarkottam High Road,

    Nungambakkam,

    Chennai – 600 034.                               ..  Appellants/2^nd & 3^rd Opp. parties

                                                     Vs

1. Thangavelu,

    S/o.Chinappan,

    Pudukollai Street,

    Thothakudi Village,

    Vedharanyam Taluk

    Nagapattinam District.                    ..           Respondent/Complainant

2. The District Collector,

    O/o The District Collector,     

    Nagapattinam District,

    Nagapattinam.                                       ..    Respondent/1^st Opposite party

Counsel for Appellants/Opp.parties              :  M/s. T. Ravikumar

Counsel for Respondent/Complainant          :  M/s. T.Ananthi

Counsel for Respondent/1^st Opp. Party         :  Dismissed

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 04.12.2014  and on hearing the arguments of appellant’s counsel, and upon perusing the  material records, this commission made the following order.

THIRU .J.JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.     This appeal is filed by the appellants/opposite parties  against the order of the District Forum, Nagapattinam, in CC  22/2011, dated 14.09.2011  allowing the complaint.

 2.   The case of the complainant is that he is a construction worker and member of the Tamil Nadu Construction Labour Welfare Board vide Membership No. 04/006820 right from 24-07-2008. The complainant along with original membership card has applied with the opposite parties for seeking marriage assistance amount of Rs. 2,000/- and hence he was not able to renew.  He has been regularly paying the prescribed fees of Rs. 30/- from 1998 to 2004. He applied for pension with the 2^nd opposite party, on completion of 60 years. The 2^nd opposite party has replied that the complainant is not eligible for pension as he has not renewed his membership in time and he has not been member of the Welfare Board continuously for 5 years. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for repudiation of his claim for pension and has sought to direct the opposite parties to sanction pension on and from 05-03-2008, compensation and cost. Hence the complaint praying for direction  to  the opposite parties to pay pension for Rs.500/- per month from 5.3.2008 and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.3000/-. 

3.  The contention of the opposite parties in the written version is that as per Rule 13 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Construction Workers) Welfare Scheme 1994, a worker who is continued to be such worker for continuous period of not less than 5 years alone is eligible for the pension.  The complainant has renewed his membership with delay and hence he could not be said to have been member of the for the continuous period of 5 years and therefore his claim for pension is rightly rejected by the 2^nd opposite party and hence there is no deficiency in service on their party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.   The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint and passed an order directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay pension of Rs.500/- from 5.3.2008 and to renew the identity card and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. .   

5.  Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

6.  The appellants contended that mere payment of fee for registration or payment of late fee would not make the respondent a consumer. On the other hand the respondent had contended that plea of non-applicability of the Consumer Protection Act taken by the appellants has to be rejected on account of the fact that the 2^nd and 3^rd appellants, who are the persons responsible for the Pension Scheme, must be held to be a 'service provider' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Vs

Bhavani

reported in AIR 2008 SC 2957.  The said citation squarely applies to the present case in hand.  A reading of the definition of 'consumer' and 'service' clearly shows that the scope and ambit of the above two terms are wide enough to take within their fold  like the respondent herein and the service rendered by the Board. The word 'service' cannot be given a restrictive or narrow meaning. It has to be given a wider connotation. It takes within its fold service of any description which is made available to potential users in the field of banking, financing, etc. Any delay in disbursement of pension should be viewed seriously. If there is no justifiable reason for the procrastination, the officers responsible for the laches should not be spared. Unless there is accountability, lethargy and indifference will prevail. The Consumer Protection Act, is a milestone in the history of socio economic legislation and is directed towards achieving public benefit and on a plain reading of the provisions unaided by any external aid of interpretation it applies to the case in hand. The legislative intention is thus clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The test, therefore, is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by it is service or even facility. The officer who is rendering statutory service on the basis of rules and regulations by charging fee he would be liable to be proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because the complainant avails of the services by paying statutory fees.  The concept of sovereign function has undergone changes and in a welfare state, where the activities of the government extend to several spheres, the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign for the purpose of immunity has largely disappeared as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Chairman, Railway Board

vs.

Chandrima Das

reported in (2000) 2 SCC 465.   As such we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the appellants that that they are discharging sovereign functions.

7.     Therefore we are of the view that, the respondent comes squarely within the  definition of  'consumer' within  the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) , in as

much as, by becoming a member of the Tamil Nadu Construction Labour Welfare Board, and contributing to the same, the complainant was availing of the services rendered by the appellants for implementation of the Scheme. Therefore we to hold that the complaint filed before the District Forum is maintainable.

8.   The appellants further contended that the respondent has not been a member of the scheme for continuous 5 years period and hence he is not eligible for pension. The respondent had strongly contended that as per  G.O. MS. No. 36 dated 28-02-2011 he is eligible for pension by relying upon  Clause 13 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Construction Workers) Welfare Scheme 1994 which reads as under

“13 (1) Eligibility : - Every registered manual worker who has completed 60 years of age is eligible for pension”

Perusal of the above makes it clear that the respondent/complainant is eligible for pension as he has registered with the appellants and had completed 60 years of age. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the respondent / complainant is eligible for pension.

9.       The appellants contended that the 1^st opposite party i.e, the District Collector has no role in the dispute and he is not a necessary party to the proceedings.  On perusal of records we find that the 1^st opposite party has no role in the case and we are inclined to accept the contentions of the appellants in this regard and accordingly the complaint has to be dismissed as against the 1^st opposite party.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to reduce the compensation to Rs.5000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the District Forum and otherwise there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

10.     In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order of the District Forum by reducing the award of compensation for mental agony to Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) instead of Rs.20,000/- and confirming the rest of the order.

The complaint is dismissed as against the 1^st opposite party

No order as to costs in the appeal.  

 

 

 P.BAKIYAVATHI                J. JAYARAM                           R.REGUPATHI

      MEMBER                   JUDICIAL MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

INDEX; YES/ NO

VL/D;/PJM/