KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 229/2018
JUDGMENT DATED: 13.09.2021
(Against the Order in C.C.324/2018 of CDRF, Kozhikode)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
|
|
Jayarajan N.K., ‘Krishnalayam’, Thattancheri, Kinalur P.O., Balusseri Via, Kozhikode District-673 612.
|
(By Adv. K.P.Moyin)
VS.
RESPONDENTS:
|
1.
|
Koduvalli Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. No.D2299, Koduvalli P.O., Kozhikode Dt.- 673 572, Represented by the Secretary.
(By Adv. Subair Kunju)
|
|
2.
|
Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Pension Board, T.C.27/156, 157, Kala Nivas, Chinmaya Line, Near Ayurveda College, Kunnumpuram P.B.No.85, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. Represented by the Secretary/Addl. Registrar.
(By Adv. A.Yarshad & Anu Yarshad)
|
|
3.
|
Kerala State Co-operative Employees Welfare Board, PB No.112, 3rd Floor, Kerala State Co-operative Bank Building, Over Bridge Jn, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. Represented by the Secretary/Addl. Registrar
|
JUDGMENT
|
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
|
As per an order dated 15.03.2018, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) has dismissed C.C. No. 324/2018, filed by the appellant, finding that it had no jurisdiction to admit and decide the complaint on the merits. The petition was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not paying the eligible retirement benefits due to the employee. The aggrieved complainant is the appellant before us. The opposite parties in the complaint are the respondents herein.
The appellant herein is a retired employee of the Koduvalli Housing Co-operative Society at Kozhikode. He was working as a Junior Clerk of the society from 12.02.1996 to 30.11.2014. Upon his retirement, he became entitled to be paid pension from 01.12.2014, apart from other retirement benefits. His complaint was that the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not paying his retirement benefits amounted to deficiency in service. He had therefore, approached the District Forum seeking the issue of a direction to the respondents to pay his retirement benefits. He also sought compensation for the deficiency in service and costs.
However, the District Forum declined to admit the complaint or to issue notices to the respondents and has dismissed the same as not maintainable as per the order appealed against.
The District Forum has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court (Dr.Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Appellant Vs. Dir.Health Services Haryana....& others -Respondent in Civil Appeal No.5476 of 2013 dated 11.07.2013) where