National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Venkatesh And Ors. vs Vishwanath And Ors. on 28 November, 2007
Equivalent citations: I(2008)CPJ219(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioners were the opposite parties before the District Forum, where the respondents/complainants had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
2. It was the case of the complainant before the District Forum that he was an employee of the first to third respondents, and after retirement a gratuity amount of Rs. 2,50,108 was due to him which has not been paid and when the matter was no t getting settled between the parties, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 2,50,108 along with compensation of Rs. 25,000 and cost of Rs. 2,000. Petitioners were directed lo make these payments within a period of one month failing which it was to carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realisation. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was filed by the petitioners before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us.
3. Two legal submissions have been made by the petitioner before us, namely, that this is not a consumer dispute hence Consumer Fora cannot entertain this complaint. Secondly, the District Forum at Bagalkot had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
4. As far as the first point is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner wishes to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullundur and Ors. CA No. 8 of 1977 dated 16.10.79. We have very carefully gone through this judgment which relates to the period 1979 whereas Consumer Protection Act, 1979 came into existence from 1987. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows:
3. Act not in derogation of any other law--The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
5. Admittedly, as per law now laid down by this Commission and the Hon'ble Supreme Court this is an additional remedy available to the consumer. The fact that the complainant shall fall within the definition of the consumer has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC), CA No. 411 of 1997 dated 30.1.1996. In the cited judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon its own earlier judgment in the case of Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia I (1998) CPJ 1 (SC) : I (1998) 4 SCC 39, held as follows:
In the present case, we are concerned with Clause (ii) of Section 2(l)(d). In the said clause a consumer would mean a person who hires or avails of any services and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services. When a young child is taken to a hospital by his parents and the child is treated by the doctor, the parents would come within the definition of consumer having hired the services and the young child would also become a consumer under the inclusive definition being a beneficiary of such services. The definition clause being wide enough to include not only the person who hires the services but also the beneficiary of such services which beneficiary is other than the person who hires the services, the conclusion is irresistible that both the parents of the child as well as the child would be consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and as such can claim compensation under the Act.
6. In the above circumstances we are left in no doubt that the respondent shall be consumer and in view of the Section 3 of the CPA, 1986, the Consumer Fora will have jurisdiction to entertain such a case.
7. Coming to the point of jurisdiction, there is no dispute that the complainant was employee of the petitioner-Bank which has its Headquarter at Hubli but they also having a branch office in Bagalkot Section 11(2)(a) of the CPA, 1986, dealing with the jurisdiction of District Forum, reads as follows:
11(2)(a) The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain.
8. There is no disputing the fact that since there is a branch of petitioner at Bagalkot, and it is also important to note that the written submissions before the District Forum were filed by the Manager of the petitioner-Bank located at Bagalkot, hence, in view of the provisions of Section 11(2)(a) of the CPA, 1986, we are quite clear that District Forum at Bagalkot had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case.
In view of above, we see no merit in any of the legal pleas taken by the petitioner before us, hence they are dismissed.
9. As per material on record, the OP Nos. 4 and 5 before the District Forum and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before us, have categorically stated in the reply that they have already sent amount of over Rs. 18 lakh on 18.2.2006 to the petitioner. In any case we are dealing with the gratuity amount of Rs. 2,50,108 and this has not been denied. In view of the concurrent finding in this point, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission, to call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Commission.
In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in this revision petition, which is dismissed.