Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

 

8.      It is uncontested position that the Complainant was an employee of the Petitioners, who are a Public Sector Company. He approached the District Forum against denial of his pension benefit, for which he contributed. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a significant issue concerning jurisdiction of the consumer forum and argued that he does not qualify as a "Consumer" since he served the Petitioners, who are Public Undertakings Company. It was further contended that Govt servants or employees of Public Undertakings do not fit in the definition of a "Consumer" as outlined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the consumer forum is not the appropriate venue for addressing grievance concerning retiral benefits, as this issue pertains to a service matter. As a result, he requested that the orders passed by the lower fora be set aside, and the Complaint filed before the District Forum be dismissed. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Matter of Dr.Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana & Ors., Civil Appeal No.5476 of 2013, decided on 11.07.2013 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

 

12.      In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225, this Court examined the issue as to whether a prospective buyer can be "consumer" under the Act, and held:

 
"The consumer as the term implies is one who consumes. As per the definition, consumer is the one who purchases goods for private use or consumption. The meaning of the word 'consumer' is broadly stated in the above definition so as to include anyone who consumes goods or services at the end of the chain of production. The comprehensive definition aims at covering every man who pays money as the price or cost of goods and services. The consumer deserves to get what he pays for in real quantity and true quality. In every society, consumer remains the centre of gravity of all business and industrial activity. He needs protection from the manufacturer, producer, supplier, wholesaler and retailer.
xx xx xx     Therefore, it is after allotment, rights may arise as per the contract (Article of Association of Company). But certainly not before allotment. At that stage, he is only a prospective investor (sic in) future goods......There is no purchase of goods for a consideration nor again could he be called the hirer of the services of the company for a consideration. In order to satisfy the requirement of above definition of consumer, it is clear that there must be a transaction of buying goods for consideration under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the said Act. The definition contemplates the pre-existence of a completed transaction of a sale and purchase. If regard is had to the definition of complaint under the Act, it will be clear that no prospective investor could fall under the Act".
"In our view, the respondent comes squarely within the definition of 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant for implementation of the Scheme. The same is the case in the other appeals as well."
 

16.      In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act.