BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 95/10.
THIS THE 3rd DAY OF MAY 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Shivamma W/o. Late Mareppa, Age:
Major, Occ: Household, R/o. Santhe Bazar near Sungadu School, Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Sub-Regional Office, Raichur.
CLAIM :- For to direct the opposite to release the
pension amount to the complainant with arrears from the month of Oct-2009 and to continue to pay the pension amount till her life time with interest.
Date of institution :- 11-11-10.
Notice served :- 23-12-10.
Date of disposal :- 03-05-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. C.Pandu, Advocate.
Opposite Party represented by Sri. Gourish, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant Shivamma against Opposite Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, for to direct the opposite to release the pension amount to the complainant with arrears from the month of Oct-2009 and to continue to pay the pension amount till her life time with interest.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, late Mareppa had got minor son Basavaraj out of her wedlock with Mareppa. Pension was grated in the name of Basavaraj till attaining his majority, accordingly pension paid to Basavaraj till Oct-09. Thereafter opposite issued letter dt. 19-03-10 by stating that, Basavaraj is not the son of complainant and deceased Mareppa and asked the complainant to refund amount of Rs. 87,965/- paid in the name of Basavaraj. After receipt of the said letter, complainant gave suitable reply by furnishing survival certificate issued by Tahasildar, Lingasugur, in which the said Basavaraj is shown as son Mareppa. She also requested to the opposite not to stop the payment of her pension amount, but they have stopped the payment of pension and also demanded to refund an amount of Rs. 87,965/-, as such, this complaint is filed for the reliefs as noted in her complaint.
3. Opposite appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed detail written version by denying that, after the death of Mareppa, complainant furnished false information by stating that, Basavaraj is her son, accordingly, pension was granted to the complainant and Basavaraj, thereafter complaint was filed by some persons by stating that, the said Basavaraj is not the son of Mareppa, as such enquiry conducted and noticed that, the said Basavaraj is not the son of Mareppa, accordingly, it stopped the payment of pension amount in the name of Basavaraj. The complainant received the pension amount of Rs. 87,965/- in the name of Basavaraj as she is the guardian of minor son of Basavaraj, as such, notice was issued to complainant to refund the said amount, it not stopped the payment of pension amount to complainant, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, one Basavaraj is the son of Mareppa and herself and after the death of Mareppa pension was granted in her name and in the name of Basavaraj who is the minor, under the guardianship of her. Thereafter, opposite stopped the payment of pension amount to her by issuing notice dt. 19-03-10 by demanding to refund an amount of Rs. 87,965/- paid in the name of Basavaraj, thereafter, she furnished all the information but opposite shown their negligence in making payment of pension amount of her, but illegally issued a demand notice dt. 19-03-10 to make payment of Rs. 87,965/- and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in her complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In Negative.
(2) In Negative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 & 2:-
6. In order to prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant Shivamma was filed, she was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of Assistant Provident Fund, Commissioner of opposite was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked.
7. 1. It is undisputed fact that, deceased Mareppa is the husband of complainant and he was working in KSRTC at his lifetime.
2. Further it is undisputed fact that, opposite issued a demand notice to the complainant for to refund an amount of Rs. 87,965/- which is a pension amount paid in the name of Basavaraj.
8. In the light of these undisputed facts, we have gone through the entire contents of complaint, her affidavit-evidence (PW-1) and documents filed in this case. All the facts goes to show that, complainant, all along in her complaint as well as in her affidavit-evidence stated that, the said Basavaraj is minor son of her and deceased Mareppa. In support of this contention, she filed survival certificate issued by Tahasildar, Lingasugur, which is at Ex.R-1. After complaining to the opposite by some other persons that, the said Basavaraj is not the son of deceased Mareppa and complainant and she is claiming pension amount with false documents. Thereafter opposite conducted investigation as to whether the said Basavaraj is the son of Mareppa or not and after its investigation, it found that, the said Basavaraj is not the son of Mareppa, but he is the son of one Basappa Bande vide Ex.R-3. This fact got confirmed by Ex.R-5 School leaving certificate of Basavaraj in which Basavaraj is shown as son of Basappa Bande. Mareppa has got only two sons and one daughter. Accordingly the amount received by the complainant in the name of Basavaraj is based only on the false information by complainant. Furthermore, the complainant has received a total amount of Rs. 87,965/- in the name of Basavaraj as she is the guardian of minor son of Basavaraj. Surprisingly complainant filed a document Ex.P-5 i.e, legal notice dt. 16-06-10 in which she, clearly stated that, her husband Mareppa took Basavaraj in adoption as their adoptive son at his life time. This fact has not been pleaded by the complainant in her complaint or in her affidavit-evidence PW-1.
9. By taking into consideration of the entire facts, we are of the view that, we have to decide the following facts in this litigation namely:
1. Whether this Forum has got jurisdiction to deal with the service matters of Mareppa and as to whether the payment of pension amount either to complainant or to Basavaraj is in accordance of law.
2. Whether this Forum is competent to decide as to whether the said Basavaraj is an adopted son of Mareppa even though the said Mareppa is having two sons and one daughter at his lifetime.
3. Whether, opposite wrongly stopped the payment of pension amount of complainant.
10. In respect of Point No-1, we are of the view that, the dispute in between the complainant and opposite appears to be with regard to service benefits of deceased Mareppa. In the said circumstances, as per section 2(O) of C.P. Act., this nature of litigation is excluded from the meaning of service. In this regard we have followed the principles of the rulings reported in:
(1) Indian Medical Association V/s. P. Shanta
AIR 1996 Supreme Court 550.
(2) 2000 ALT-5-166=2000(TLS)403589
K. Vishnu V/s. National Consumer Redressal Commission.
11. In view of the principles of the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above, we are of the view that, the present dispute in between the parties is coming under meaning contract of personal service, which is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Hence on this count the present complaint is not maintainable.
12. As regards to second point referred above is concerned, this Forum is not competent to accept the contention of the complainant, as the said Basavaraj is her minor son and he is in her care and custody, or whether he is the adoptive son of Mareppa. This fact is to be decided by the competent Civil Court only and not by the consumer forum.
13. Admittedly, complainant is claiming that, Basavaraj is her minor son that means to say that, the said Basavaraj is in her care and custody. Further it is clear that, she received pension amount in the name of Basavaraj from the opposite, as she is the guardian and mother of him. Opposite stopped the payment of pension amount of Basavaraj and asked the complainant to refund the amount of Rs. 87,965/- vide its notice dt. 19-03-10, as Basavaraj cannot be real son or adoptive son. Hence, we are of the view that, there is no negligence on the part of opposite or deficiency in its service in issuing notice dt. 19-03-10 to the complainant as the complainant herself received that amount in the name of Basavaraj, as, he is her minor son.
14. By looking into the facts of complaint in respect of Point No-3 referred above, we have, perused the Account Extract Ex.R-6 and correspondence letters of Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-9 and crediting the pension amount to her Account vide Ex.R-13 & Ex.R-14, statements of account, it is very much clear that, no such payment of pension amount of Shivamma was stopped by opposite as alleged in this complaint.
15. It appears to us that, this false complaint was filed by the complainant by creating false story after receipt of notice dt. 19-03-10 by opposite to over come the said payment which was wrongly received by her. Hence we have not noticed any kind of deficiency in service on the part of opposite, accordingly, we answered Point No-1 in Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
16. In view of the finding on Point No. 1, the complainant is not entitled for any of the relief’s as prayed in her complaint, accordingly we answered Point No- 1 & 2.
POINT NO.3:-
17. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 03-05-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
