AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Complainant against the order dated 08.08.2017 of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.RBT/A/15/445 in A/12/49 filed against the order dated 17.12.2011 of the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.327 of 2010. District Forum had dismissed the said Complaint.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the Respondent to issue CGHS card upon his application dated 10.08.2008 despite his fulfilling all the requirements and depositing the requisite fee of 18,000/- by way of Demand Draft. His contention is that he had to pay 60,000/- for obtaining the CGHS card when he applied afresh and thus suffered monetary loss. It is submitted that non-issuance of CGHS card to him on his application dated 10.08.2008 amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.
The contention of the Respondent is that the Petitioner/Complainant had not fulfilled all the requirements mentioned in the application dated 10.08.2008. Besides other documents, which he was required to furnish, the Pension Payment Order (hereinafter referred to as "PPO") was not furnished and since the requisite documents were not furnished by the Petitioner/Complainant, CGHS card was not issued and the Demand Draft submitted along with the application was duly returned.
Parties led their evidences before the District Forum. After hearing learned counsels for the parties, District Forum reached to the conclusion that the Complainant had failed to comply with the requirements and furnish the documents which were required to be furnished along with application dated 10.08.2008 and therefore, non-issuance of CGHS card was not deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.
This order was impugned by the Petitioner before the State Commission. The State Commission reached to the same conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent in non-issuance of CGHS card on the application dated 10.08.2008 since the Petitioner had not furnished the requisite documents with the Department.
This order is impugned by the Petitioner/Complainant before me under Section 21(b) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the burden is upon the Respondent to show and prove as to what documents were not furnished or which condition was not fulfilled by the Petitioner when he applied for issuance of CGHS card vide his application dated 10.08.2008. It is further argued that there is no contention in the Written Statement that the conditions were not fulfilled by the Petitioner.
Upon this, learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the Respondent has clearly stated in their Written Statement that the conditions required to be fulfilled before issuance of CGHS card were not fulfilled by the Petitioner at the time when he applied for it vide his application dated 10.08.2008. It is submitted that although the Petitioner had retired in 2005, departmental proceedings were going on against him and no PPO was given to him. It is submitted that PPO was issued only in the year 2009 and this fact is also admitted by the Petitioner in his letter dated 20.08.2010. It is further contended that the PPO on the file shows that the PPO was issued only in 2009. It is submitted that the application which was filled and furnished by the Petitioner on 10.08.2008, lists the documents which the applicant is required to furnish along with the application and one of the documents is the copy of PPO. It is argued that since he obtained the PPO only in the year 2009, he could not have furnished the copy of same along with his application dated 10.08.2008 and therefore, non-issuance of CGHS card is justified. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute this fact. It is, therefore, established that one of the important documents which was required to be furnished by the applicant for issuance of CGHS card had not been furnished by the Petitioner along with his application dated 10.08.2008 and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. The findings of the Fora below are based on evidences. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Revision Petition has no merit. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.