BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE:28th May 2015
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 77/2015
Complainant/s: Makbul S/o.Mohammad Khazi,
Age: 62 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o.H.No.16, 2nd Cross, Sadat Colony, Vishal Nagar, Old Hubballi, Dist. Dharwad.
(By Sri.M.S.Patil, Adv.)
v/s
Respondent/s: The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Hubballi Div., Hubballi, Dist. Dharwad.
(By Sri.V.B.Dhavaleshwar, Adv.)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay medical expenses amount of Rs.1 lakh with 12% interest from 31.05.2012 till its realization, to pay Rs.10000-/ towards cost of the proceedings and also award compensation and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, complainant was the employee of the respondent and he was driver. After attaining superannuation age he retired from service on 31.05.2012. During the time of service the complainant’s wife Hamidabanu had taken treatment from KLE Heart hospital from 21.05.2011 to 01.06.2011 and had spent Rs.1.20 lakhs towards heart operation and treatment charges. The complainant had obtained Rs.1 lakh as an advance from the respondent to bear the expenses of the hospital bills. Due to busy schedule of the service and for the reason the health condition of complainant’s wife was not in good condition & due to non availability of the documents the complainant could not file medical reimbursement claim within time. On 22.10.2013 the complainant submits application with all relevant documents to the respondent but the respondent rejected the complainant’s claim with false reason that the application not filed within time. The respondent corporation deducted Rs.1 lakh the advance paid towards medical expenses, out of gratuity payable to the complainant. Even then also the complainant requested for reconsideration of his application and for payment of medical reimbursement amount. Respondent given assurance and postponed the payment by giving one or other false reasons as some delay has been caused. Even after repeated requests the respondent did not heed up. Hence, complainant on 22.01.2015 got issued legal notice to the respondent calling upon to settle claim of Rs.1 lakh within 7 days. The said notice served on 28.01.2015 but till day the respondent neither replied nor paid the claim amount. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
3. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing with regard to maintainability of the complaint either on law or on facts on the ground the very complaint is false and frivolous. While respondent admits the complainant is an employee and also treatment taken by his wife and also disbursement of advance amount. While the respondent denies the reasons for delayed claim averred by complainant and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. The respondent relying on government order No.HD/182 TRE/69 dtd.13.05.1970 prays for dismissal of the complaint as there was no cause of action for the present complaint with cost.
4. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
1. Negative
2. Negative
3. As per order
Reasons
Points 1 and 2
5. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the complainant’s wife had underwent heart operation and the complainant is the employee of the respondent corporation.
6. Now the question to be determined is, the complaint as brought is maintainable under the Act and this Forum has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the same and non settlement of the claim by the respondent amounts to deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.
7. As admitted by both the parties complainant and respondent are employee and employer. So also the claim of the complainant is concerned is a benefits under the employment. In this regard this Forum relies on 1993 (III) CPJ 3 – TNSCDRC – S.Pandyan & Ors Vs. The Scandinavian Airlines System & ors. Wherein it is held, complainant’s only beneficiaries cannot maintain the complaint.
8. So also it is admitted fact that the complainant’s wife took treatment and discharged from the hospital on 01.06.2011. On this count also the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant retires from his service on 31.05.2012. It is also admitted fact that complainant submits claim application only on 22.10.2013. It is also admitted fact by the complainant that there is a delay in filing the complaint before this Forum. He has pleaded the same in his complaint pleadings. The complainant filed relevant application u/s.24 (A) of CP Act to condone the delay and for admission of the same. These facts are for determination before deciding the complaint on merits.
9. As discussed supra the relationship of complainant and respondent are employee and employee and also claim with regard to the benefit under the service. As contentions taken by the respondent settlement of medical claim is governed by government order No.HD/182 TRE 69 Dtd.13.05.1970. The respondent also placed the said notification before this Forum. Whereas in the para.6 & 7 of the said notification it is clearly mentioned how the claim to be made who has to be claimed, to whom the claim has to be submitted and within what time it has to be filed. Under these guidelines of the notification non settlement of the claim do not amounts to a deficiency in service to attract the jurisdiction of this Forum for adjudication. Hence, this complaint is not a consumer complaint u/s. 2(C) of CP Act. So also as discussed supra admittedly cause of action has taken place immediately after discharge from the hospital i.e. on 01.06.2011. Hence, there is a delay of more than 871 days in filing complaint before this Forum. No sufficient convincing grounds & facts are made out to condone the delay.
10. Even taken into consideration of the contention taken by the complainant that due to non availability of doctor the complainant did not obtain documents in the relevant time and filed claim within 6 months. Except oral say the complainant did not adduce any evidence in support of his contention. Perusal of medical bills and doctor certificate issued by doctor who treated complainant’s wife, reveals those are issued in the year 2011 itself. Even otherwise documents will be in the custody of hospital & will not be in the custody of doctors who will treat. Hence, there is no much substance in contending the reasons for condone the delay. Viewed from any angle viz., limitation, maintainability of complaint, deficiency in service the complaint is hopelessly out of jurisdiction. Hence, complainant is not entitled for any benefits much less benefits claimed.
11. In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in Negative.
12. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
Order
The complaint is dismissed. However this order do not comes in the way of claims of the complainant if he deserves to claim the same before other proper forums or courts. No order as to costs.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 28th day of May 2015)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
