National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Premsingh Verma vs The Cantonment Executive Officer on 28 September, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION
NO. 248 OF 2011
(From the order dated 26.11.2010 in Appeal No.
2365/2010 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal)
Premsingh Verma .. Petitioner
S/o Sh. Kishanlal Verma
Ganesh Nagar (Jhuggi)
Near Vrindavan Dhaba
Hoshangabad Road
Bhopal (M.P.)
Vs.
1. The Cantonment Executive Officer
Cantonment Board
Mhow (M.P.)
2. The President
Cantonment Board
College of Combat
Mhow Cantt. (M.P.) ..
Respondents
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE
V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE MR.SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
Mr. K.P. Singh, Advocate
Pronounced on : 28th September, 2011
ORDER
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the two respondents who were OPs 1-2 respectively before the District Forum. The petitioner was under the employment of OP Cantonment Board , Mhow (Madhya Pradesh) from 7.8.1964 to 21.1.1982 as a steno-typist. His pensionary benefits were not given by the OP Board and hence he filed a consumer complaint no.535/2007 before the District Forum, Bhopal alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Because of some confusion regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, Bhopal, initially the complainant/petitioner withdrew his application in July 2009. However, on realizing that the complaint was well covered within the pecuniary jurisdiction, he approached the District Forum with an application for restoration of his complaint and to take it up on record for hearing. The OP did not turn up and was proceeded ex parte. After hearing the complainant/petitioner, the District Forum vide its order dated 3.6.2010 rejected the application for reviewing its earlier order permitting withdrawal of the complaint on the ground that it does not have such a power vested in it under the Consumer Protection Act. Besides this, the District Forum also observed in its order that the complaint was not at all maintainable before it on the ground that the complainant was steno-typist in a Cantonment Board at Mhow which comes in Indore District and hence not within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at Bhopal. Aggrieved by this order dated 3.6.2010 passed by the District Forum, Bhopal, the complainant challenged the same in appeal before the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (State Commission for short). The State Commission, however, dismissed the appeal of the complainant vide its order dated 26.11.2010 which has now been challenged by the petitioner through the present revision petition.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record including the orders of the fora below. We find that the restoration application of the complainant was rightly rejected by the District Forum since the complainant earlier had withdrawn his complaint and the same had accordingly been disposed as such and in the absence of any power of review vested in the District Forum, the restoration application could not have been allowed by the District Forum. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeal of the complainant in this regard. Coming to the merits, we have noted that the fora below have held that the complaint of the petitioner was liable for dismissal on the grounds of non-maintainability under the Consumer Protection Act as well as absence of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Bhopal before which the complainant had lodged his complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even though the complainant was an employee at the Cantonment Board, Mhow in Indore District, he had settled down at Bhopal after his retirement and since he was now receiving his pension at Bhopal, the cause of action would be deemed to have arisen partly at Bhopal as well and hence his complaint at the District Forum, Bhopal was maintainable in terms of Section 11 (2) (c). As regards the maintainability of the complaint as a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the counsel has relied on the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi [(2000) (2) N.P.H.T 89] and the Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum [(2005) (1) CPR 149]. We have gone through the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and the Kerala High Court in the two cases cited by the counsel for the petitioner but the ratio laid down in the two cases was respectively in respect of provident fund matters before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and release of pension and other pension matters by the Employees Pension Board. Neither of the two authorities in question against which the petitioners in the aforesaid cases (supra) had approached the concerned consumer fora were employers of the concerned petitioners but independent statutory authorities dealing with provident fund matters and the pension matters respectively and hence the petitioners were treated as consumers qua those authorities. The present case is different inasmuch as the petitioner herein has filed his complaint against his employer, namely, the Cantonment Board, Mhow for his terminal benefits for which the consumer forum is not the appropriate authority because the complainant could not be treated as a consumer qua his employer within the meaning of the term consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We agree with the view taken by the fora below and do not see any justification or ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.
(V.B. GUPTA, J) PRESIDING MEMBER (SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER SS/