SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

R.K.PATRA, SUBASH MAHTAB
Harihar Jore Irrigation Division – Appellant
Versus
Anirudha Sahu – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties :
For the Appellants : Mr. Sangram Das, Addl. S.C.
For the Respondent: None.

ORDER

R.K. Patra, President — The moot question that arises for consideration in their appeal is as to whether a Government servant can raise a “consumer dispute” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act’) claiming compensation against his officers on the ground that there was delay in disposing of his application for temporary withdrawal of money from the General Provident Fund (in brief G.P.F.).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the respondent is that while serving as Junior Engineer of the State Government at Titilagarh, he in April 1998 applied for temporary withdrawal of Rs. 70,000 from G.P.F. to defray the marriage expenses of his sister. As the amount was not made available to him at proper time, he had to take loan from a private financier to meet the expenses.

3. The Superintending Engineer however sanctioned withdrawal on 22.6.1999. The delay caused by him amounts to deficiency of service and because of such delay, he had to undergo mental shock and agony. He accordingly filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of rupees one lakh.

4. The appellants filed their written version separately. Their common case is that the r




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top