DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD vs K.A. BABY

THE opposite party in O.P. No. 137/97 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kalpetta is the appellant.

THE complainant alleged that herself is a widow of P.R. Muthu why was a member of the Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund. He ''died'' on 27.12.1995 and that except giving Rs. 1,000/- towards funeral expenditure, no further benefit of the deceased husband was paid. THErefore she wanted redressal. The opposite party in their version contended, that the claim under Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act cannot come under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that though deceased was a member of the Welfare Fund from 1991, he committed default in the payment of the contribution and therefore his membership ceased; though the same was revived, again he committed default. Therefore the deceased Muthu was not eligible for the compensation claimed by the complainant. The complainant gave evidence as P.W. 1 and produced Ext. Al showing contribution of Rs. 415/- from 7/92 to 8/95.

On behalf of the opposite party O.P.W. 1 was examined and Exts. Bl and B2 were marked.

THE District Forum made a direction to the opposite party to pay the benefits of the deceased Muthu to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order. It also awarded Rs. 500/- towards costs. THE aforesaid direction is challenged by the appellant in this appeal. Though notice was served on the respondent, the respondent is absent. The learned Counsel for the appellant is sought to maintain, that the finding of the District Forum that the jurisdiction of the District Forum is not ousted by the Section 34 of the Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1988 is not correct. According to the learned Counsel, the dispute with respect to the benefits of a member or his family is one that has to be dealt with by the authority constituted under the Act. Consequently the jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted as per Section 34 of the Act. Section 34 reads : "Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts-No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine as matter which is by or under this Act or the scheme required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by the Government or the Board or the Chief Executive Officer or any other officer appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 19."

THE Civil Court referred to in the said section it is urged would take in Consumer Forum also as the FORA also exercises, civil jurisdiction as a quasi judicial authority. With respect to a similar provision in Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, this Commission held that the said section would oust the jurisdiction of the FORA created under the Consumer Protection Act also. Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act also ousts jurisdiction of Civil Court, the reasoning of this Commission with respect to Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act has to be applied with for Section 34 of this Act also, as the wording in Section 34 of the Act as well as Section 69 in Co-operative Societies Act concerning this aspect is similar. In that view, it has to be held that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. When such is the position, it is not necessary to go into the other questions. It has to be held that the finding entered by the District Forum as to jurisdiction as well as on the other points has to be vacated on the ground that the same was without jurisdiction. Of course, from the materials produced before the District Forum, it is seen, that the contribution for the period from 7/92 to 8/95 was collected by the opposite parties, which could, under law, constitute by estoppel by waiver, and therefore, their refusal to pay the benefits on the ground that he was not a member at his death, cannot be said to be correct. But, since the jurisdiction of FORA created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is ousted, we cannot uphold the direction made by the District Forum; but we have to observe that the respondent''s claim for disbursement of the benefit should have been considered favourably by the authority under the Act. But, as indicated, since the Forum has no jurisdiction, we have to allow the appeal. In the result, the appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.