ARMY GROUP INSURANCE FUND Vs. NAIK SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, dated 23.12.1999 whereby the following order has been passed in favour of the respondent : "In the aforesaid light of the observations, we order the opposite party No. 3 to send all the service record pertaining to Nk.. Sohan Lal (retired) having Army No. 5341523 to opposite party No. 2 i.e. M.D. Army Group Insurance for ascertaining and calculating AGI disability benefits at 20% of the disability within 15 days from today. After receipt of the record from opposite party No. 3 aforesaid the opposite party No. 2 i.e. M.D. Army Group Insurance would proceed to calculate the said benefits available at 20% of the disability to the Army personnels in accordance with the Rules and Procedure established thereunder and would ensure the payment of the amount so ascertained with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1.4.1993 till final payment is made. This payment of the AGI disability benefit at 20% of the disability alongwith interest at the aforesaid rate be made within 15 days from the receipt of the record from opposite party No. 3 by opposite party No. 2 i.e. M.D. Army Group Insurance to the complainant Nk. Sohan Lal (retired) positively failing which both these opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 shall render themselves liable for the penal provisions as envisaged under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986." In addition, litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/ - has also been awarded.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we have examined the record. At the outset, learned Counsel for the complainant has raised a preliminary point to the effect that the dispute arisen between the parties, resulting in filing of the complaint by the respondent, did not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter to be called the Act', and was thus, not maintainable before the District Forum, Shimla, which passed the impugned order. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent laid great stress on the fact that the appellant being Army Group Insurance Fund and on its own showing, being a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, would definitely be rendering service within the meaning of that expression defined in the Act. Thus, any deficiency in service on its part, as in the present case, would definitely fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts.

(3.) In support of the preliminary submission, referred to above, the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance on a decision of the Haryana State Consumer Commission in the case of The Director (Through the representative) Army Group Insurance Scheme v. Naik Hans Raj Yadav, II (2001) CPJ 523=First Appeal No. 770 of 1998, decided on 18.1.2001, a xerox copy of which has been placed on the record on his behalf. We have proceeded to consider the said decision of the Haryana State Commission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respondent, who admits that such a decision has been rendered by the neighbouring State Commission, though according to him, the same does not apply to the instant case. That was a case in which the facts were somewhat similar to the facts of the instant case. There also, the complainant moved the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon with the claim that he was entitled to the extent of benefit of length of service upto 20 years as against 17 years granted to him by the Army Authorities and the said Consumer Court accepted his plea and extended the benefit of length of service upto 20 years to him, thereby directing the Army Group Insurance Scheme to pay him the amount of Rs. 41,250/ -. In the present case also, the respondent moved the learned Forum below for benefit of length of service upto 22 years, instead of 20 years allowed to him by the Army Authorities. Reverting back to the decision of the Haryana State Commission, we find that it has been held therein on more or less similar facts that in view of the Army Order No. 5.5.78, a service dispute arises between the parties as it has direct nexus with the service rendered in the Indian Army. There is no element of any profit and loss to the Army Group Insurance Scheme which is functioning under the over -all control of the Ministry of Defence only for the welfare of the ex -servicemen, and such a service cannot be said to be covered under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. According to the said decision of the Haryana State Commission, the expression "service" does not include service rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service. So the type of service provided by the Army Group Insurance Scheme cannot be said to be a 'service' in terms of the said provision of the Act.