State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chief Medical Officer, Northern ... vs Arvinder Pal Singh S/O Sh. Trilochan ... on 15 November, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.851 of 2012 Date of Institution: 6.7.2012 Date of Decision: 15.11.2012 Chief Medical Officer, Northern Railway Hospital, Jagadhri Workshop. Appellant (OP) Versus Arvinder Pal Singh s/o Sh. Trilochan Singh, R/o 152, Vishnu Nagar, New Resident of Kashmiri Lal, Ex.M.C. Jagadhri Workshop, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member. For the Parties: Mrs. Veena Bhutani Sethi, Advocate for appellant. Shri Arvinder Pal Singh-respondent in person. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 22.5.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar whereby following direction was issued to the appellant-opposite party:-
we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the respondent to reimburse the remaining amount of Rs.1,124,281.19 (Rs.1,99,176.94 amount claimed - 74896/- already paid) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the complainant from 5.8.2010 on the whole of amount Rs.1,99,176.74 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which penal action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act will be initiated.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that complainant Arvinder Pal Singh (respondent herein) being employee as Skilled Feeder Grade-I on ticket No.1961 in Northern Railway Jagadhri Workshop, brought his son Bhawandeep Singh in the hospital of the opposite party (appellant) on 7.3.2009 at about 3.00 P.M. from where the patient was referred to Central Hospital, New Delhi. The doctors of Central Hospital, New Delhi referred the patient to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi from where the patient was referred to Max Hospital Saket, New Delhi where complainants son was treated and complainant incurred expenditure of Rs.1,99,176.79 on the treatment of his son.
The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that he had submitted the bill to the opposite party for the aforesaid treatment of his son but the same was not paid to him on one pretext or the other and thus alleging it a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.
On the other hand, the opposite party denied the allegation of the complainant stating in its written statement that the file was submitted by the complainant to Bir Singh-Clerk on 5.5.2009 and the same was processed for payment as per rules. Since in this case approval of C.M.D., New Delhi was required as per practice, photocopy of the file was to be sent to the Head Quarter office for perusal by C.M.D., the file was returned to the complainant to get a photocopy of the file. The file was returned to the complainant in the presence of other office staff of M.S. Office, Railway Hospital, Jagadhri Workshop and there other Railway Employees but the complainant had not returned the original file to the opposite party. Thus, denying any kind of deficiency in service on its part, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite party has come up in appeal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
At the very outset the question for consideration before us is whether the controversy between the parties is a consumer dispute and the complainant falls within the definition of Consumer or not?.
It is well settled law that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the employee and employer. Reference is made to case law cited as Divisional Forest Officer versus Aravindaksha Menon, 2002(3) CPR 189, wherein it as been held by State Consumer Commission KERALA (THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) that:-
Constitution of India Article 226 Consumer Protection Act, 1988 Section 2(i)(d) Consumer Complaint by retired Govt. servant before Consumer Forum for award of interest on delayed payment of commutation benefits Forum allowed claim but was alleged to have overlooked objection that delay was because of employee himself as disciplinary proceedings were pending against him Writ petition questioning jurisdiction of Consumer Forum- Govt. servant could not be treated as a consumer vis--vis his employer Dispute adjudicated by Forum was without jurisdiction and award was a nuillity, void ab-initio.
In case cited as Maharashtra State Electricity Board versus Madhukar Vithal Kale (since deceased) through Legal representatives, 2010 CTJ 675 (CP) (NCDRC) it has been held that:-
Undisputedly, since respondent had been employee of petitioner-authority, this being a dispute between the employer and the employee, would not fall within the purview of service to attract beneficial provisions incorporated under Consumer Protection Act.
In a recent decision cited as UNION OF India & ORS versus RAM DAYAL, I(2012) CPJ 9 (NC), Honble National Consumer Commission held the employee not a consumer of his employer with the following observations:-
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners on the strength of decision of this Commission in the batch of Revision Petition No.961 of 1997, The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr. V. Shiv Kant Shankar Naik, I (2003) CPJ 276 (NC), has urged that the Consumer Fora had erred in entertaining the complaint relating to the present grievance of the complainant. We find force in this contention because admittedly the complainant was employed as a Fire Engine Driver in the ordnance depot under the Ministry of Defence and, therefore, he was a Central Government employee within the meaning of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which is prior in time. This legislation provides for the redressal of the grievance of the employees of the central Government employee. Taking note of the provisions of the said Act this Commission in the above noted case had clearly held that the dispute raised by the complainant was not a consumer dispute nor the complainant was a consumer as the Accountant General was not rendering any service to the complainant within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This decision was followed with the approval in revision petition No.3878 of 2009, Om Parkash Sethi V. Accountant General, Haryana (A & E), III (2010) CPJ 289 (NC) = decided on 6.7.2010, thereby making a clearcut distinction between the case that comes under the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and otherwise.
This case is fully covered by the judgments rendered in Aravindaksha Menons case (Supra), Madhukar Vithal Kales case (Supra) and UNION OF India & ORS versus RAM DAYALs case (Supra).
Admittedly the complainant was employed as a Skilled Feeder Grade-I in Northern Railway, Jagadhri Workshop under the Ministry of Railways and, therefore, he was a Central Government employee within the meaning of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which is prior in time. This legislation provides for the redressal of the grievance of the employees of the Central Government employee. Thus, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant can get his grievance redressed by filing claim before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thus, the complainant being not a consumer of the appellant-opposite party, the complaint filed by him is not maintainable.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed with liberty to file his claim before Central Administrative Tribunal having competent jurisdiction. However, in terms of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the complainant may seek exemption/condonation of the time spent before the Consumer Fora to avail remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal having competent jurisdiction, within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 15.11.2012 President Dr. Rekha Sharma Member