Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member and Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Member
Kondareddygari Adinarayanareddy – Petitioner
versus
State Bank of Hyderabad and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.71 of 2013
Decided on 20.7.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] – Revision against the order of State Commission - provident fund / Gratuity / Terminal benefits - Disputes of – if within the purview of Consumer Forum – Segregating benefits not permissible - As far as gratuity is concerned, it is undisputedly a service matter and as such it is not within the purview of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - As far as provident fund (bank contribution) is concerned, though it is settled that an employee-member of the employees’ provident fund scheme is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, 1986 the same cannot be said of the bank’s provident fund scheme -Thus in a given case examination of the provident fund (bank contribution) may inter alia include examination of the vires of the relevant rules and regulations that govern the bank’s provident fund scheme. Also, the pristine rule in vogue is that the issues relating to the entire gamut of terminal benefits as a whole, including provident fund (bank contribution) and gratuity, has been the subject-matter of adjudication by the competent services tribunal or civil court. Selectively segregating one particular benefit and taking it to the consumer protection fora is neither desirable nor tenable or sustainable – The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before the District Commission, as the terminal benefits like provident fund (bank’s contribution) and gratuity not being granted on dismissal from service is the subject-matter of the competent services tribunal or civil court. The complaint is returned un-adjudicated, the merits or the nature of the facts remain unexamined by the consumer protection fora. The complainant shall be at liberty to approach the competent services tribunal or civil court to seek remedy as per the law. Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963 shall be relevant in respect of the period spent in litigation before the consumer protection fora – Revision is dismissed. [Paras 8 to 12].
Result: Revision dismissed.
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 18.10.2012 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1098 of 2010 arising out of the Order dated 29.08.2008 of the District Commission in complaint no. 335 of 2008.
2. On the last occasion this case was taken up i.e. on 03.06.2022, enough time was spent in hearing the complainant in person who was simply unable to render any meaningful assistance. He also submitted that because of his pecuniary condition he was unable to afford the fee of an advocate and beseeched that legal aid may be provided to him. Having regard to the facts and specificities of the matter and the implications involved, Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, learned advocate was requested to appear as amicus curiae to represent the complainant.
3. We have heard the learned amicus curiae for the complainant (the petitioner herein) and the learned counsel for the bank (the respondents herein). We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 29.08.2008 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 18.10.2012 of the State Commission and the petition.
4. Briefly, on 06.07.2005 the complainant was dismissed by the bank from the post of clerk on being imposed penalty of dismissal consequent to departmental proceedings as his initial appointment on a post under the reserved category was found to have been obtained by submitting a false caste certificate. His grievance relates to the bank withholding portion of the terminal benefits i.e. ‘provident fund (bank contribution)’ and ‘gratuity’ on dismissing him from service. (Regarding provident fund, his own contribution to the fund has been released to him.)
5. We note that in the first para itself of the written version filed by the bank before the District Commission a preliminary objection was made that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act as he was seeking relief of payment of provident fund (bank contribution) and gratuity together with interest.
The District Commission vide its Order dated 29.08.2008 ignored the preliminary objection and entered into the merits of the case. Holding that the complainant was not entitled to the benefits being claimed, it dismissed the complaint observing inter alia thus “If the complainant is not entitled for provident fund contribution which was paid by the bank and gratuity from the bank, the question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties does not arise - - -. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.”
In appeal the State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 18.10.2012 also ignored the preliminary objection and entered into the facts of the case. Holding that the matter involved adjudication of disputed questions of fact, it deemed it appropriate to return the complaint to the complainant with liberty to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of the matter. It proceeded to observe, “In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. The matter is remitted back to the District Forum. The District Forum is directed to return the complaint to the appellant. The appellant is at liberty to approach proper court for redressal of his grievance.”.
6. Learned amicus curiae inter alia refers to (2000) I SCC 98 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, (2013) 10 SCC 136 Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. vs. Director Health Services Haryana & Ors., (2019) SCC Online SC 1780 Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. vs. Shreepat Rao Kamde, (2008) 7 SCC 111 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Bhavani, (2014) 2 SCC 715 Bank of Baroda vs. S K. Kool (Dead) Through Legal Representative & Anr. and (2019) 4 SCC 479 Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Shree Lal Meena and submits that it is a settled position of law that the employees’ provident fund scheme is a ‘service’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(
SupremeToday
(1) Gratuity - As far as gratuity is concerned, it is undisputedly a service matter and as such it is not within the purview of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.(2) Terminal benefits - The complaint....
Service disputes of public sector employees are beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
(1) Revisional jurisdiction - where two interpretation of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisd....
Right to Get Redressal - Respondent No.1/Complainant has a right to get redressal in this Commission for deficiency on the party of the Petitioners, who had denied him the pensionary benefit for cert....
Jurisdictional error - Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order pass....
Jurisdictional error - Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order pass....
Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act “Consumer” means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any syst....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
