DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 25th day of April, 2009
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.130/2007
G.Dhanalakshmi, W/o.Late A.Sahadevan Nair, Dhanalakshmi Vihar, Bhagavathipara, Menonpara.P.O, Palakkad. - Complainant (By Adv.P.A.Velayudhan) Vs
1. General Manager, Southern Railways, Madras. (By Adv.T.R.Rajagopalan)
2. The Divisional Manager, Southern Railways, Palakkad Division, Olavakkode. - Opposite party (By Adv.T.R.Rajagopalan) O R D E R
By Smt.Seena.H, President
Complaint is filed for getting the provident fund arrears, group insurance amount etc due to the complainant's husband who died on 20.09.1999 and to direct the opposite parties to sanction family pension to the complainant. Complainant's husband a railway employee was dismissed from service based on a departmental enquiry. The order of removal from service was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the same was cancelled. But on an appeal filed by the Railway Authorities before the Supreme Court of India, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was set aside.
2. The complainant's husband died on 20.09.1999. Prior to his death, he had made several representations and petitions to the concerned authorities to consider his case sympathetically and allow him eligible compassionate allowance and pay his provident fund arrears, comprehensive insurance amount etc. But the authorities turned a deaf ear to all his requests.
3. The complainant's husband late A.Sahadevan Nair had put in 22 years of service as a railway employee. Death benefits of the deceased employee have not so far been paid to his legal heirs. Though the complainant made a request on 10.03.2000 to the 1st opposite party in this regard, no reply was received and no action was taken on the petition.
4. As the wife and legal heir of late A.Sahadevan Nair, the complainant is eligible and entitled to get all the benefits due to him such as provident fund arrears, group insurance amount etc. and also family pension. As per the existing rules, an employee dismissed from service is also eligible for compassionate allowance.
5. The complainant has no source of income and she is in very great financial difficulties and suffering mentally and physically due to the indifferent attitude and deficiency in service on the part of the railway authorities. Pointing out all these facts and circumstances, the complainant submitted a petition dated 04.07.2006 to the Joint Director, Public Grievances, Railway Board, New Delhi to redress her grievances and arrange payment of all death benefits due to her, such as provident fund arrears, group insurance amount, family pension etc.
6. According to complainant there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay complainant provident fund arrears, group insurance amount due to her late husband, to sanction family pension and to grant compassionate allowance to the complainant as per rules which late A.Sahadevan Nair as a dismissed employee would have obtained.
7. Opposite parties filed version with the following contentions. That the averments of the complainant do not disclose any ingredient for the forum to assume jurisdiction. Further the complaint is barred by limitation and the award of compassionate allowance being discretionary, the refusal of the same cannot be characterised as deficiency of service.
8. Complainant and opposite parties filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of complainant.
9. As the opposite parties raised objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint before the forum that aspect has to be considered first.
10. The relief sought for in the complaint is to direct the opposite parties to pay complainant provident fund arrears, group insurance amount due to her late husband, to sanction family pension and to grant compassionate allowance to the complainant. Consumer forum is not at all an appropriate authority for granting the above reliefs. Complainant cannot be said to have hired the service of the opposite parties for consideration as enunciated under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence we are of the view that Administrative Tribunal is the appropriate authority to consider the same.
11. Since the preliminary point is answered against the complainant we are not further going into the merits of the case.
12. In the result, complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.
13. Pronounced in the open court on this 25th day of April, 2009 Sd/- Seena.H, President
Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Appendix Witness examined on the side of complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Copy of Judgement in O.A.K-296/87 dt.30.10.1989 Ext.A2 – Copy of covering letter dt.20.11.89 Ext.A3 – Copy of Judgement in Civil Appeal No.5530/93 dt.1.10.1993 Ext.A4 – Copy of death certificate of Sahadevan Nair.A Ext.A5 – Copy of letter sent by A.Sahadevan Nair to opposite parties Ext.A6 (Series) – Copy of letter dt.4.7.06 sent by complainant to opposite parties, acknowledgement card, postal receipts etc.
Ext.A7 – Provisional Certificate Ext.A8 – Form P Ext.A9 – Letter No.XEN/CN/KRR dt.7.1.86 of Divisional Hospital Ext.A10 – Lr. No.MOS/52/APS/2000/1191/1238 dt.1.6.2000 Ext.A11 – Share Certificate issued by Southern Railway Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ext.A12 – Identification slip Ext.A13 – letter No.AEN/CN/SRR/29 dt.24.1.1983 Ext.A14 – Letter No.P.608/CN/PTJ dt.22.12.1982 Ext.A15 – Letter No.2000/PG/4/585/SR/CA-III dt.14.6.2001 Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party Ext.B1 – Letter No.F(E)III/2003/PN1/5 dt.09.06.2005 from Ministry of Railways Costs (Not allowed)
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
