National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Commissioner Of Payments, Office Of ... vs Maria Theresa And M. Edward on 4 September, 2002
JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. In these two petitions a common question of law has arisen. Petitioner was the opposite party in two separate complaints filed by the respondents-complainants.
2. To appreciate the issue raised it will be proper to refer to facts in Revision petition No.868/2002.
3. Husband of the complainant was employee of the Anglo-French Textiles Ltd. He had deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- for a period of three years which was payable to him with interest @ 15% per annum. The amount became due on 1.2.1983. However, a letter was written by the employers to the complainant on 11.10.83 that there was no sufficient funds to pay the amount as the manufacturing operations of the textile mills had since been suspended. Meanwhile, w.e.f. 2.5. 1986 Anglo-French Textiles Ltd. was nationalised by the Anglo-French Textile Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986 ( for short Pondicherry Act). The Preamble of the Act reads as under:
" AN ACT to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the right, title and interest of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited for the purpose of ensuring continued and increased production of goods essential to the needs of the community and for matters connected therewith for incidental thereto.
WHEREAS the Anglo-French Textiles Limited, Pondicherry remained closed from the first week of July, 1983;
AND WHEREAS various attempts and efforts made by the Pondicherry Administration and the Government of India (Ministry of Textiles) in collaboration with the Financial Institutions like Industrial Development Bank of India, United Commercial Bank, etc., to reopen the mills through the existing management or by inducting a new management could not succeed;
AND WHEREAS certain banks had advanced large sums of money to the company owning the said undertaking with a view to making the said undertaking viable and were unwilling to make any further advances;
AND WHEREAS further investment of very large sums of money is necessary for reorganising and rehabilitating the said undertaking and thereby to protect the interests of the workmen employed therein and to augment the production of cloth and yarn so as to subserve the interests of general public;
AND WHEREAS acquisition by the Government of the said undertaking is necessary in the interest of labour force, maintenance of production, ensuring credit line, and in the largest interest of the people of Pondicherry;".
4. Under Section 3 of the Pondicherry Act on the appointed day, the Anglo-French Textiles Limited and the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to that textile undertaking shall stand transferred to, and shall vest absolutely in the Government of Pondicherry. Chapter V of the Act deals with Commissioner of Payments who is appointed under Section 12 falling under this Chapter. Section 16 provides that claims arising out of the matters specified in the Second Schedule shall have priority in accordance with principles set out in the Section. It was like that Category 1 shall have precedence over all other Categories and Category II shall have precedence over Category III. Section 17 provides for examination of claims by Commissioner of Payments. Section 18 provides for rejection of claims. Under sub-section (7) of Section 18 a claimant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner of Payments may prefer an appeal against that decision to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the textile undertaking is situated. Commissioner of Payments had been given certain powers of the civil court and investigations before him are deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and the Commissioner of Payments shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter-XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Section 19 then provides for disbursement of money by the Commissioner of Payments to the Claimants. Section 23 of the Pondicherry Act provides that the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order of any court, tribunal or authority. It is not necessary to set out other provisions which are not quite relevant to understand the controversy involved in the present petition.
5. The complainant was informed that she had to receive the amount of the fixed deposits made by her husband from the Commissioner of Payments. Since the payment was not received by the complainant a notice was sent by her lawyer on 6.12.1995 to the Commissioner of Payments requiring him to make the payment of Rs.30,000/- and also pay interest @ 15% per annum. A sum of Rs.12,000/- was also claimed for delay and deficiency in processing the claim of the claimant and for failing to discharge the statutory obligations. There is an order on record dated 15.12.95 of Commissioner of Payments in the case of the complainant wherein it was mentioned that even as first Category has not been exhausted so far it was not possible to consider the claim of the complainant as she was stated to be falling in Category-III.
6. Complaining deficiency in service, complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum against the Commissioner of Payments. District Forum by its order dated 5.10.99 directed the Commissioner of Payments, the petitioner, to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order and in case of default to pay the amount with interest @ 6% per annum. A sum of Rs.1000/- was also awarded as costs. Against this order the petitioner filed appeal before the Pondicherry State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. State Commission dismissed the appeal but set aside the award of cost of Rs.1,000/- as given by the order of the District Forum.
7. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition.
8. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short CPA) came into force on 24th December, 1986. Section 3 of CPA provides additional forum to a consumer. But the question that arises for consideration is in view of the Provisions of Pondicherry Act, District Forum for that matter State Commission could have exercised their jurisdiction.
9. It is not disputed that Pondicherry Act is a valid piece of legislation. This Act is a complete code for assets, liabilities etc. of the Textile Undertaking i.e. the Anglo-French Textiles Ltd. State Commission, in our view, did not properly consider the impact of its order on the working of the Pondicherry Act. Such an order is not only against the provisions of the Pondicherry Act but is bound to disturb the very fabric of that Act. A valid law has provided as to how payment is to be made to different categories of persons from the available amounts with the Commissioner of Payments. Commissioner of Payments is a quasi judicial body and his order is appealable. It is not understood as to how a complaint could have been filed and entertained against him as opposite party by the District Forum and then by the State Commission. It has not been shown how under CPA provisions of Pondicherry Act can be set at naught. For any right of the complainant provisions of the Pondicherry Act have only to be looked into. As a matter of fact, the impugned orders have not only made the complainants to jump the queue but in fact are in breach of the provisions of the Pondicherry Act.
10. We do not think District Forum or State Commission should at all have interfered with the working of Commissioner of Payments. These petitions are, therefore, allowed and the orders of the District Forum and State Commission are set aside and the complaints dismissed.
11. At the time of admission we had directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- to each of the complainants-respondents to defray their expenses to defend their petitions. We are told that this amount has been paid. No body appears for the respondents-complainants. There shall, therefore, be no order as to costs.