National Consumer Disputes Redressal
R. Krsna Murtii vs Tmt.Sulochana on 3 September, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1349 OF 2022 (Against the Order dated 19/07/2022 in Appeal No. 58/2019 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu) 1. R. KRSNA MURTII ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. TMT.SULOCHANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA,MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. MADHURENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MRS. T. GEETHA, ADVOCATE
Dated : 03 September 2024 ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mrs. T. Geetha, Advocate, for the respondent.
2. R. Krsna Murtii (the complainant) has filed above revision petition from the order of Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Madurai dated 19.07.2022 passed in Appeal No.58 of 2019 (arising out of order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirappalli dated 07.03.2019 passed in CC/29/2017), whereby District Forum has partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to refund Rs.9000/- with interest @7% per annum from 03.09.2016 till 27.09.2017 and pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost to the petitioner and State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
3. R. Krsna Murtii (the petitioner) filed CC/29/2017, for directing Tmt. Sulotchana (the respondent) to refund Rs.9000/- deposited by him and to pay Rs.80000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost. The petitioner stated that Tmt. Sulotchana was running "Shiny Home Care" to provide domestic servants and made advertisement in this respect. R. Pappammal, mother of the complainant was a nonagenarian, aged about 96 years and living at his village Siruvachur. The complainant was proprietor of M/s. Rockfort Paints, Plot No.36, Sidco Industrial Estate, opposite Bharathidasan University, Mathur. Due to his engagement in business, he was unable to look after his mother at village. Attracted with the advertisement of the opposite party, the complainant approached the opposite party and informed that he wanted a maid servant for looking after his old mother at village Siruvachur. The opposite party agreed to send a maid for a period of not less than 10 months on a monthly wage of Rs.9000/- and demanded Rs.9000/- as advance. The complainant paid Rs.9000/- through cheque on 02.09.2016 to the opposite party. The opposite party sent a maid namely Shenbagam to his house at village Siruvachur on 03.09.2016. The maid, instead of looking after his mother, harassed her in various ways and started making serious allegations against his mother. The complainant intimated the opposite party about the behaviour of the maid. The maid stopped to work on 07.09.2016 and she was paid wages of 5 days i.e. from 03.09.2016 to 07.09.2016. The maid came to his house at village Siruvachur on 23.09.2016 along with muscle man and demanded ransom amount from his mother Pappammal. The maid also called the complainant on phone and asked to come at village Siruvachur and threatened to demand heavy amount and harm him in various ways. The complainant lodged a police complaint in respect of the said incident on 24.09.2016 at police station Perambalur. The opposite party worked in this threat business to extract ransom in collusion with her maid servant. The complainant gave legal notice to the opposite party on 30.09.2016. The complainant demanded for refund of his money of Rs.9000/- within 15 days through second legal notice dated 06.01.2017. In spite of service of the legal notice, the opposite party failed to refund his money. The opposite party arranged some criminal elements, who removed/stolen his documents from his office at Mathur namely (i) Undertaking given by Tmt. Sulochana dated 02.09.2016; (ii) Undertaking given by the maid Shenbagam dated 02.09.2016; (iii) receipt of cheque of Rs.9000/- dated 02.09.2016; (iv) Letter addressed to Inspector, Mahalir Kaval Nilayam, Perambalur on Shenbagam dated 09.09.2016 (RLAD); (v) Cover returned un-served on DSP, District Crime Branch, Perambalur on a complaint (RLAD); (vi) Legal notice dated 30.09.2016; (vii) Legal notice dated 07.01.2017; and (viii) Registration receipts sent to President of India, Prime Minister of India, Minister for Communication, New Delhi. The complainant lodged a complaint in respect of the incident of theft of the documents on 13.01.2017 to Police Station Mathur.
4. The opposite party filed her written reply and admitted running "Shiny Home Care", at No.16/8, Akila Garden, 1st Cross, Akila Nagar, Thiruvanai Kovil, Trichy to provide domestic servants to the public on payment basis. She stated that when the complainant approached her on 02.09.2016 for a maid to take care of his old mother, living at village Siruvachur and deposited a cheque of Rs.9000/-, she provided the maid Shenbagam to him on 02.09.2016. The complainant did not inform her anything on 07.09.2016. It is only when she received legal notice of the complainant dated 30.09.2016, then for the first time she came to know that the complainant had removed the maid Shenbagam on 07.09.2016 from service. The opposite party assured the complainant to provide another maid. The opposite party made inquiry from Shenbagam about the incident then she denied all the allegations of harassment to Pappammal and said that the complainant had voluntarily removed her from service after paying 5 days wages. As the complainant himself discharged the maid, as such, she was not liable to refund the money deposited by the complainant. Shenbagam and Pappammal are necessary parties in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties.
5. District Forum, after hearing the parties, vide its judgment dated 06.03.2019, held that the complainant has failed to prove that the maid Shenbagam had misbehaved with Pappammal during her employment from 02.09.2016 to 07.09.2016. So far as allegation that the maid came to the house of the complainant at village Siruvachur on 23.09.2016 along with muscle man and demanded ransom amount from his mother Pappammal and also called the complainant on phone and asked to come at village Siruvachur and threatened to demand heavy amount and harm him in various ways, are not within 'consumer dispute' as such, he has no jurisdiction to record any finding in this respect. Due to ill feeling of the maid with the mother of the complainant, the maid left the work, which cannot be a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Mental agony and harassment was suffered due to the maid but she was not arrayed as party in the complaint. On these finding the complaint was partly allowed and order as stated above was passed.
6. The petitioner filed Appeal No.58 of 2019 from the order of District Forum. The respondent also filed Appeal No.132 of 2019 from the order of District Forum. Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Madurai dismissed Appeal No.132 of 2019 as infructuous, vide order dated 31.01.2000. State Commission dismissed Appeal No.58 of 2019 vide dated 19.07.2022 on merit. Hence this revision has been filed.
7. The petitioner submitted that the order dated 19.07.2022 was passed by a single member of State Commission although as per Section 16(1B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Bench has to be constituted by President with one or more members. Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Writ Petition No.18 of 2012 Kamal Travels Kokks International Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others (decided on 14.03.2018) held that a single Member of State Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal/complaint finally. This judgment has been upheld by Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.4969 of 2020 State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Kamal Travels Kokks International (decided on 30.09.2021). The petitioner paid Rs.9000/- through cheque on 02.09.2016 to the respondent, who sent the maid namely Shenbagam to his house at village Siruvachur on 03.09.2016 in evening. The maid, instead of looking after his old mother, began harassing her in various ways and started making serious allegations against her. The petitioner intimated the respondent about the rude behaviour of the maid. Due to her rude behaviour, the maid was asked to leave on 07.09.2016 in morning and she was paid wages of 5 days i.e. from 03.09.2016 to 07.09.2016. Thereafter, the maid came to his house at village Siruvachur on 23.09.2016 along with muscle man and demanded ransom amount from his mother Pappammal. The maid also called the petitioner on phone and asked to come at village Siruvachur and threatened to demand heavy amount and harm him in various ways. The petitioner lodged a police complaint in respect of the said incident on 24.09.2016 at police station Perambalur. The maid came to his office again on 11.01.2017 and stolen various papers. District Forum has directed for refund of the money deposited by the petitioner but he was also entitled to the compensation of Rs.80000/- for mental agony and harassment.
8. We have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. As the appeal was decided by a single member of State Commission although as per Section 16(1B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Bench has to be constituted with one or more members, we proceed to examine the appeal on merit as we have jurisdiction to pass appropriate order in appeal under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is quoted below:-
"Section 21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission.--Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain--
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore; and
(ii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."
9. Supreme Court in Karnataka Housing Board v. K.A. Nagamani, (2019) 6 SCC 424, held that a revision petition has a narrower scope than an "appeal". In Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar, (1980) 4 SCC 259, this Court discussed the distinction between "appellate jurisdiction" and "revisional jurisdiction" as follows : (SCC p. 261, para 2)
"2. "Appeal" and "revision" are expressions of common usage in Indian statute and the distinction between "appellate jurisdiction" and "revisional jurisdiction" is well known though not well defined. Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing, as it were, on law as well as fact and is invoked by an aggrieved person. Such jurisdiction may, however, be limited in some way as, for instance has been done in the case of second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, and under some Rent Acts in some States. Ordinarily, again, revisional jurisdiction is analogous to a power of superintendence and may sometimes be exercised even without its being invoked by a party. The extent of revisional jurisdiction is defined by the statute conferring such jurisdiction. The conferment of revisional jurisdiction is generally for the purpose of keeping tribunals subordinate to the revising Tribunal within the bounds of their authority to make them act according to law, according to the procedure established by law and according to well defined principles of justice."
Reference must also be made to the judgment of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, wherein it was held that : (para 28)
"28. ... Conceptually, revisional jurisdiction is a part of appellate jurisdiction but it is not vice versa. Both, appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are creatures of statutes. No party to the proceeding has an inherent right of appeal or revision. An appeal is continuation of suit or original proceeding, as the case may be. The power of the appellate court is co-extensive with that of the trial court. Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction involves rehearing on facts and law but such jurisdiction may be limited by the statute itself that provides for appellate jurisdiction. On the other hand, revisional jurisdiction, though, is a part of appellate jurisdiction but ordinarily it cannot be equated with that of a full-fledged appeal. In other words, revision is not continuation of suit or of original proceeding. When the aid of revisional court is invoked on the revisional side, it can interfere within the permissible parameters provided in the statute."
Ordinarily, the power of revision can be exercised when illegality, irrationality, or impropriety is found in the decision-making process of the fora below.
9. The petitioner alleged that due to rude behaviour, the maid was asked to leave on 07.09.2016 in morning and she was paid wages of 5 days i.e. from 03.09.2016 to 07.09.2016. The maid came to his house at village Siruvachur on 23.09.2016 along with muscle man and demanded ransom amount from his mother Pappammal. The maid also called the petitioner on phone and asked to come at village Siruvachur and threatened to demand heavy amount and harm him in various ways. The petitioner lodged a police complaint in respect of the said incident on 24.09.2016 at police station Perambalur. The respondent worked in this threat business to extract ransom in collusion with her maid servant. The petitioner gave legal notice to the respondent on 30.09.2016.
The respondent stated that she was not informed anything on 07.09.2016. It is only when she received legal notice of the petitioner dated 30.09.2016, then for the first time she came to know that the petitioner had removed the maid Shenbagam on 07.09.2016 from service. The respondent assured the petitioner to provide another maid. The respondent made inquiry from Shenbagam about the incident then she denied all the allegations of harassment to Pappammal and said that the petitioner had voluntarily removed her from service after paying 5 days wages.
10. As per own allegation, the petitioner asked the maid to leave the work on 07.09.2016 in morning, paying wages of 5 days i.e. from 03.09.2016 to 07.09.2016 due to her rude behaviour with his mother. In the notice dated 30.09.2016, the petitioner asked the respondent and the maid not to demand any amount for the period not served. At that stage, even the petitioner did not ask for refund of the advance money deposited by him as he himself had discharged the maid. District Forum found that the petitioner has not filed affidavit of his mother to prove rude behaviour of the maid. Thus the allegation of rude behaviour of the maid during 03.09.2016 to 06.09.2016 and demand of ransom by the maid on 23.09.2016 has not been proved by any admissible evidence. The allegation of rude behaviour has been made against the maid Shanbagam, who has not been made party in the complaint although she was a necessary party and had right to rebut the allegation. There is no allegation against the respondent or the maid Shenbagam and only their names have been mentioned in bottom in the complaint dated 13.01.2017. In any case, consumer forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate 'deficiency in service' only. As the petitioner, himself, discharged the maid on 07.09.2016 and in his notice dated 30.09.2016, did not demand refund of advance money deposited by him, District Forum has rightly held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as the allegation of rude behaviour of the maid cannot be adjudicated in her absence. The appeal has no merit and we upheld the order dated 19.07.2022. The petitioner is harassing the respondent, taking advantage of dismissal of Appeal No.132 of 2019 in arbitrary and illegal manner. Although Sate Commission directed to list delay condonation application filed in the appeal on 21.02.2020 but dismissed the appeal as infructuous. On the finding that there was deficiency in service, the respondent was not liable to refund even advance amount nor pay any compensation.
ORDER
In view of aforesaid discussions, the revision is dismissed.
..................................................J RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA PRESIDING MEMBER ............................................. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA MEMBER