EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the "Act") assails the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, "State Commission") in Appeal No. 992 of 2010 dtd. 5/8/2015 arising out of order dtd. 28/4/2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short, "District Forum") in Complaint No. 305 of 2009.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner, are that the respondent/complainant who was an employee of the petitioner retired from service on 31/8/2009. As a member of the Employee Provident Fund (EPF) scheme, 1952, the respondent was contributing to the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) of the Food Corporation of India/petitioner under membership no. 6526. The respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum stating that the petitioner/opposite party had not paid him his dues of CPF, gratuity, leave encashment, etc amounting to Rs.7,36,500.00 in view of pendency of a departmental enquiry. The District Forum dismissed this complaint on 28/4/2010 on the ground that the respondent/complainant had failed to apply in the prescribed form and had not completed the required formalities. The respondent filed FA No. 992 of 2010 before the State Commission which allowed the same and directed the petitioner to pay the complainant interest @ 8% per annum on the delayed payment of CPF along with a composite amount of Rs.15,000.00 as compensation and litigation cost. This order has been impugned before us on the grounds that the State Commission erred in entertaining the appeal since the complainant is not a "consumer" under the Act, being an employee of the petitioner as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr Jagmitter Sain Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana and Ors. CA No.5476 of 2013 [(2013) 10 SCC 136]. The order is impugned also on the ground of having been passed without application of mind as no finding relating to deficiency in service has been arrived at; instead, the order is based on the approach "whatever the case may be"".

(3.) Respondent was placed ex parte on 24/5/2018. Legal heirs of the respondent were taken on record. However, no one appeared on her behalf despite notice.