STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 126 of 2023

Sukhdeo Mahto aged about 72 years Male son of Late Urhul Mahto, resident of village- Baikunthpur, Brahanda, P.O.- Ghatho, P.S.- Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur.

                                                                                                          …......  Appellant

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Dalasingsarai, District- Samastipur.
2. The Circle officer, Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur.

                                                                                                                                                    …............ Respondents

            Before,

            Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar,  President

             Mr. Ramprawesh Dash, Member

ORDER

Per: Ramprawesh Das (Member)

Dated-30.06.2023

1.          Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no merit in this appeal.

2.        This appeal has been field by the appellant against the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Samastipur (herein after referred to as the Ld. District Commission) in complaint case no.230/2018 whereby  and where under the learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint petition  granting liberty to approach before the appropriate forum.

3.     The briefly stated the facts of this case giving rise to the complain case no.230/2013 is exclusively with respect to the payment  of freedom fighter pension which is given by the State and Central Government. It means this case is purely against the State and Central Government which does not come under the ambit of Consumer protection Act. Before establishing this case, complainant first has to prove himself first to be a consumer which come under the jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and  section-2 (7) of the Act 2019 for which he has paid a consideration amount for availing the service by service provider, but in this case complainant  has been getting freedom fighter pension from the government which not come under the jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act. It is barred by the consumer protection Act to file a complain case in District Consumer Commission or State Consumer Commission against the opposite parties.

4.           Having heard rival contention of both the parties and perused the entire material available on records the District Commission held that this case is not maintainable in the District Commission and dismissed the complaint petition and given the liberty to  the complainant to file case before the appropriate Forum.

5.             Heard learned counsel for the applicant and gone though the records, we find that  there is  no merit  in this appeal and accordingly this appeal is hereby dismissed with a liberty to approach beforethe appropriate Forum for redressal his grievances.

6.             A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the C.P. Act 2019.Order be uploaded forthwith on the confonet of the State Commission.

7.              Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.

                (Ramprawesh Das)                                                                                     (S. Kumar, J)

                          Member                                                                                                President

Mukund