STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. Vs. VIJAYSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Few facts giving rise to the writ petition are stated thus:

(3.) Shri N.S. Khubalkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State Government submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the claim of the respondent for medical reimbursement solely on the ground of parity. It is submitted that if medical reimbursement was wrongly made to similarly situated persons, the respondent could not have claimed parity. It is submitted that the respondent would not have any right to seek medical reimbursement only on the ground that medical reimbursement was made to the other members of the District Forum on earlier occasions. It is submitted that the Tribunal has observed in the impugned order that the State Government is at liberty to take steps to avert re-occurrence of the mistake of making medical reimbursement. It is submitted that if re-occurrence is to be prevented, a direction could not have been issued to the State Government to release the amount towards medical reimbursement. It is submitted that when the Tribunal has observed in the impugned order that there are no rules to grant the claim of medical reimbursement, it was improper on the part of the Tribunal to allow the claim in the case of the respondent. It is stated that Section 10 (3) of the Act provides that the salary, honorarium and other allowances payable to the Members of the District Forum shall be such, as may be "prescribed" by the State Government. It is stated that the term "prescribed" is defined in Section 2 (n) of the Act and it means "prescribed" by the rules made by the State Government under the Act. It is submitted that in terms of the rule making power under Section 30 (2) of the Act to frame rules for carrying out the provisions of Section 10 (3), the State Government has framed the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000. It is submitted that the salaries and the allowances payable to the President and the other Members of the District Forum are prescribed by Rule 3 of the Rules of 2000. It is submitted that since the salary, allowances and the other terms and conditions of the service of the Members of the District Forum are governed only by the Rules framed by the State Government under the Act and since the Rules framed by State Government do not provide for medical reimbursement, the respondent does not have a right to seek the reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him. It is submitted that the Tribunal rightly held that there were no Rules to grant the claim of medical reimbursement. It is submitted that in the absence of any Rules for medical reimbursement, the Tribunal could not have directed the petitioners to make payment towards medical expenses incurred by the respondent solely on the ground of parity, when the petitioner had, by a communication dated 15.06.2015 sought the recovery of the amount wrongly paid to the members of the District Forum. It is submitted that the order of the Tribunal is clearly illegal and is liable to be set aside.