UNION OF INDIA Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR MANI TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been preferred by the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunication, New Delhi and the Superintendent of Post Offices, Deoria Division, Deoria, challenging the order, dated 05.09.2012, passed by the UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1241 of 2007, whereby the Appeal has been dismissed in default on account of non-appearance of their Counsel at the time of hearing. In Appeal before the State Commission, the Petitioners had questioned the legality of order dated 25.04.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Deoria (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 549 of 2006, inter alia, directing the Petitioners to pay to the Complainant, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- withheld by them along with a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards interest, etc.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition are that while working as Assistant Cashier, Deoria Division Head Office, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Complainant for alleged negligence on his part in not sealing the bag in which, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was to be sent to another sub post office. For the said lapse a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on him vide order dated 15.02.1990. The said amount was recovered from him on 04.11.1992. However, the said order was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, by order dated 07.06.1996. Although the said order was accepted by the Petitioners, yet the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- recovered from him on 04.11.1992, by virtue of penalty order dated 15.02.1990, was not refunded. The Complainant superannuated on 31.01.2006. Even at the time of settlement of his dues on retirement, the aforesaid amount was not refunded to him. Having failed in all his attempts to get back the said amount, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners, the Complainant filed the aforesaid Complaint.

(3.) The Petitioners resisted the Complaint on the ground that : (i) the Complaint under the Act was not maintainable as he was not a "Consumer", (ii) having kept quiet for over ten years the Complaint was barred by limitation and (iii) the Complaint was defective as the Director, Postal Services was not impleaded as a party. However, the written statement filed on their behalf was silent in so far as the claim for refund of the said amount was concerned. On consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record, the District Forum accepted the Complaint and directed the Petitioners to pay to the Complainant the aforesaid amounts, along with a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. The Petitioners' appeal having been dismissed, they are before us in this Revision Petition.