Advocate R. G. Londhe for the Complainant
Advocate Prakash Sarfare for the Opponents
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 20th July 2013
This complaint is filed by retired employee of Bank of Baroda against the Head Office, Sadashiv Peth, Pune Branch Office and Assistant General Manager of the Head Office for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant is a senior citizen residing at Erandwane, Pune 411 004. He is ex-employee of the Opponents. Opponent No.1 is a Banking Company incorporated under the Banking Companies Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970. Opponent No.2 is the Branch office and Opponent No.3 is the Authority to accept the membership of the retired employees under the Bank of Baroda Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme. Complainant has joined Bank of Baroda on 09/02/1970. In the month of September 1995 Bank introduced Pension Scheme known as Bank of Baroda Employees’ Pension Regulation 1995. In the year 2000-2001 Bank introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme known as ‘BOBEVRS 2001’. The object of the scheme was to promote employees for voluntary retirement and Bank has not withdrawn any benefit, facilities which were available to the retirees from the Bank. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced so as to reduce the strength of the employees in the Bank due to introduction of computers. Complainant was eligible to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme under the said scheme. Opponents accepted the application and complainant was relieved from the Bank services on 31/03/2001.
Opponent No.1 has introduced the scheme known as ‘Bank of Baroda Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees’ w.e.f. 01/09/2000. The object of the said scheme was to provide financial assistance to meet the medical expenses incurred by the retired employees of the Bank for self and for spouses. The employees who have taken Voluntary Retirement Scheme from the Bank’s service in terms of the provisions of Bank of Baroda (Employees’) Pension Regulation 1995 were also covered under the scheme, they were eligible for membership of the said scheme. Complainant approached the Opponents and requested for the membership of the medical scheme by paying Rs.8250/- as contribution. But he was informed by the Opponents that he is not eligible for the said scheme as he had obtained Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001-BOBEVRS 2001. Being aggrieved by the said rejection he has filed present complaint against the Opponents for deficiency in service. According to the complainant cause of action arose on 19/03/2010 when he applied for the membership. He has requested for directing the Opponents to accept his membership for Bank of Baroda Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme. He has further asked compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and cost of complaint to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
[2] Opponents resisted the complaint by filing written statement. They have denied the contents of the complaint in toto. It is flatly denied that the complainant is eligible for being Member of the Scheme which was introduced in the year 2000 for Medical Assistance to the retired employees and their spouses. According to the Opponents as the complainant has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme known as ‘BOBEVRS 2001’ he is not eligible for the said scheme as it is specifically referred in the scheme that the employees who had been retired and eligible for pension as per the Pension Regulations, 1995 are eligible for medical assistance. It is the case of the Opponents that as employees who had opted for Voluntary Retirement in 2001 had received more benefit than other employees they were not considered for medical assistance scheme. It is also contended that complainant is not consumer of the Opponents and this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as membership of the complainant is not accepted he has no right to raise any grievance against the Opponents before this Forum. Opponents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] Considering the pleadings of both parties and scrutinizing the documentary evidence particularly the scheme and circulars of the Opponents as well as giving anxious thought to the legal position following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has proved that he is eligible for being member for Medical Assistance Scheme ? | In the negative |
2 | Whether complainant has proved any deficiency in service at the instance of the Opponents ? | In the negative |
3 | What order ? | Complaint is dismissed. |
Reasons-
As to the Point Nos. 1 to 3-
The admitted facts in the present proceeding are that complainant was employee of the Opponents and he had opted for Voluntary Retirement as per the scheme announced by the Opponents in the year 2001 – BOBEVRS 2001. It is also not in much dispute that the complainant had applied to the Opponents for the membership of the scheme on 19/03/2010 and his application was rejected on 07/04/2010. This fact is also substantiated by the documents which are produced before this Forum. The learned Advocate for the Complainant argued before me that the complainant is eligible for being member of the said scheme as he is retired employee which is made applicable to the retired employees as per the Regulations of 1979 and 1995 as the complainant is retired after passing those resolutions. It is also argued on behalf of the complainant that the said scheme has not excluded the employees who had been retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001. It is not in much dispute that the employees who had opted for voluntary retirement were considered for the said scheme but as the said scheme was introduced in the year 2000 and the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is introduced in the year 2001 it cannot be said that this scheme is made applicable to the complainant. It is further significant to note that subsequently the scheme was amended and the restrictions on the retired employees who were gainfully employed was removed by the amendment. At that time also the Opponents have not included the employees who had been retired as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001. The learned Advocate for the complainant argued before me that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is introduced for reducing the strength of the employees as computers were introduced and by the said introduction of the scheme the facilities and amenities which were already extended to the retired employees were not curtailed. Hence it should not be presumed that the said scheme is applicable to the employees who had opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001.
In that context learned Advocate for the Opponents argued before me that the employees who had opted Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001 were given more benefits i.e. salaries for 60 days as well as other monetary benefits hence they were not included in the scheme and this fact was known to the complainant. Hence he had not applied immediately for the membership of the said scheme. Admittedly the complainant had opted retirement on 31/03/2001 and he had applied for the membership of the said scheme on 19/03/2010 i.e. near about after 7 years. Conduct of the complainant itself is self eloquent to show that he was aware that he was not eligible for being member of the said scheme. Even though there is no specific limitation period provided in the scheme for making application it cannot be said that the said application can be filed after 7 yrs. The complainant has not explained delay for filing that application before the Authorities after 7 yrs.
It is further significant to note that the complainant had applied for the membership of the scheme and the Opponents i.e. employer has the choice to accept the membership of any employee and scan the eligibility of the member. Unless and until complainant has become member of the scheme it cannot be said that there are relations between the parties as consumer and service provider. It is further significant to note that the Opponents has not accepted any consideration from the complainant hence it is not proved that the complainant has availed any services from the Opponents for consideration. The learned Advocate for the opponents placed reliance upon the ruling of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Aswathalah E. Sthuri Sanjeevamma vs. D. Vamma reported in Volume III (1996) CPJ 262. In the said ruling the government servant filed complaint as the pension was not released and in that proceeding it has been observed that the complainant is not a consumer. The learned Advocate for the complainant argued before me that the employees who had been retired as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001 are entitled for pensionray benefits and other benefits. In that context he has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 2009 (4) SCALE in case of Bank of India & Anr. V/s K. Mohandas & Ors. The said judgment is relating to SLP (C) No. 22704 / 2005. In that ruling it is observed that eventhough the employees who had opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme are entitled for the benefits of pension regulations. That proceeding is relating to the pensionary benefits. But it reveals from the scheme that the employees who had opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2001 were not included under that scheme hence the complainant is not entitled for the membership of the said scheme. As per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme the employees got 60 days salary for each completed year of service or salary for the number of months of the service left whichever was lower in addition to the normal terminal benefits. As the scheme has specifically included the employees who had been retired as per the Pension Regulations 1979 and 1995 only those employees are eligible for being member of the said scheme. The learned Advocate for the Opponent argued before me that the similar kinds of cases were decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 8102 of 2011 to 8160 of 2011 on 26/09/2012. A copy of the judgment is produced by the learned Advocate for the Opponents. All these petitions were relating to the pensionary benefits of the employees of Bank of Baroda as they have also applied for seeking membership of the Medical Assistance Scheme and in that judgment it is observed that the scheme is not made for the employees who had opted retirement for Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001. In the light of the above discussion and considering the legal position I held that the complainant is not consumer of the Opponents and he is not eligible for the Medical Assistance Scheme which is introduced by the Opponents.
I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. As per peculiar circumstances parties to bear their own cost.
3. Parties are directed to collect the sets which were provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of order. Else they will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place- Pune
Date – 20/07/2013
