Divisional Controller, Divisional Office, Gujarat State Transport Corporation & Anr vs Patel Bhagwatiben Kanabhai

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Divisional Controller, Divisional Office, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. against the order dated 5.5.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.370 of 2012.

In short the facts of the case relevant for disposal of the present petition are that the respondent's husband was an employee of the petitioner organization and was a member of the Group Insurance Scheme, which was run by the petitioner in association with the Insurance Company. A premium of Rs.40/- was deducted per month from the salary of the respondent from the year 2000 to 2004. The insured died on 13.01.2005. Thereafter the wife of the insured i.e. the complainant/respondent asked for the payment under the Group Insurance Scheme, however, the petitioners refunded sum total of the monthly premium deducted. Not satisfied, complainant claimed, an amount of Rs.42,000/- from the petitioners. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahesana, (in short 'the District Forum') which allowed the complaint and ordered Rs.42,000/- along with 6% p.a. interest to be given to the complainant by the opposite parties/petitioners

Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties preferred an appeal bearing No.370 of 2012 before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the State Commission.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage. Learned counsel argued that the insurance claim under the Group Insurance Scheme was not maintainable as the complainant did not fulfil all the criteria to be a member of the group insurance scheme and that he had also not given any option for the same. The premium was wrongly deducted from the salary of the husband of the complainant. Therefore, the deducted premium was refunded and no claim was submitted to the insurance Company. It was stated that an employee cannot file a complaint against the employer and particularly in respect of retiral dues. To support his arguments, learned counsel referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. Vs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana, decided on 11.07.2013 and pointed out the following portion of the judgment:-

"16. In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act.

In view of the above, we hold that the government servant cannot approach any of the Forum under the Act for any of the retiral benefits."

On the basis of this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel argued that the husband of the complainant was an employee of the petitioner's organisation and therefore, no claim can be filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in respect of any of the retiral dues. The payment under Group Insurance Scheme policy is a retirement benefit and therefore, the same is covered under the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. Vs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana, (supra).

Learned counsel further pointed out that the complaint also suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant has not made the Insurance Company a party in the complaint case. Had the premium collected from the insured employee been paid to the Insurance Company, the claim would have come from the Insurance Company and not from the petitioner organisation. Hence, Insurance Company was a necessary party in the matter.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record. First of all, it is admitted that the petitioners collected the monthly premium of Rs.40/- per month from the insured employee for about four years and did not remit the same to the Insurance Company. Thus, prima facie the petitioners were deficient in their service so far as the Group Insurance of the employee was concerned. When the insured employee died, the petitioners refunded only the premium collected and did not send the insurance claim to the Insurance Company. In such situation, role of the Insurance Company does not come into play in the present matter and therefore, if the complainant has not made the Insurance Company a party in the complaint case, I don't see any reason why the complaint should be treated as suffering from non-joinder of necessary party.

When the petitioners had deducted insurance premium from the salary of the insured employee, on what basis now the petitioners are claiming that the employee was not entitled to be a member of the group insurance scheme. No objection from the Insurance Company in this regard has been filed by the petitioners. Thus, the employee has been contributing to the group insurance scheme with the clear understanding that he has been accepted a member of the Group Insurance Scheme and that is why his premium has been deducted from monthly salary. During the life time of the insured, the petitioners never objected to this deduction of monthly premium and never informed the employee that he is not a member of the Group Insurance Scheme. Thus, after the death of the employee, the petitioners have no right to claim that the employee was not a member of the Group Insurance Scheme. Considering from the point of view of the employee, the complainant is only demanding the payment of insurance amount as per the Group Insurance Scheme. As the petitioners' organisation has neither forwarded the premium collected to the insurance company nor have forwarded the insurance claim of the employee to the Insurance Company, both the fora below have rightly decided that the complainant is entitled to the insurance claim under the Group Insurance policy and the same has to be given by the petitioners' organisation.

Now coming to the question of whether the employee or the legal heir of the employee can file a complaint against the employer is concerned, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgement in Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. Vs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana, (supra) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for retiral dues an employee cannot file a complaint case under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. First of all, the complaint has not been filed by the employee and it has been filed by the wife of the late employee. Moreover, this is a death claim under the Group Insurance Policy rather than the claim after the retirement. Moreover, the facts of the case in the case Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. Vs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana, (supra) are different as in that case, the employer had not released the retirement benefits like gratuity etc. because the complainant had retained the government accommodation for many years without any authorisation and the penal rent was imposed by the organisation. In the present matter, it is simple case of death claim under an Insurance policy. Hence, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. Vs. Dr. Health Services, Haryana (supra) are not attracted in the present matter.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition, requiring any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No.1158 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage.