M.EDWARD vs COMMISSIONER OF PAYMENTS

BOTH the appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

THE facts of the case are as follows : THE complainants were workmen in the Anglo French Textiles Mill Limited, Pondicherry. THE complainant in ANo. 7/97 deposited an amount of Rs. 12,000/- on 24.11.1980 for a periode of three years. THE complainant in A. No. 8/97 deposited Rs. 20,000/- on 2.11.1981 and Rs. 10,000/- on 1.2.1983 for a period of two years. THEreafter the mill had become sick and was taken over by the Government of Pondicherry and entrusted to a Corporation created by that Government for further steps. THE taking over was by Act No. 7 of 1986 and the appointed day is 24.12.1985. At the time of the taking over, the Government decided that the Undertaking will be paid Rs. 7,65,00,000/- (It is not known how this amount has been fixed). That amount was paid not directly to the owner, but to the Commissioner of Payments who was enpowered to disburse all the dues of the erstwhile company according to the provisions contained in the Act to that effect under Chapter-V. The balance was to be remitted by the Commissioner of Payments to the owner. The complainants preferred their claims before the Commissioner of Paymments on 19.9.1991 and their claims were registered under No. 187/32 (A. No. 7/97) and 226/32 and 227/32 (A. No. 8/ 97). They have received no reply. The complainants issued a Lawyer''s notice on 29.11.1995 to which the Commissioner of Payments replied on 15.12.1995 saying that since he has not exhausted the first category of creditors, he is not in a position to consider the claims of the complainants who were according to him under Category-Ill. Aggrieved by the action of the Commissioner of Payments, the complainants approached the District Forum with the following prayers : Appeal No. 7/97 "To direct the opposite party, to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation for the delay in deciding the claim after a period of 12 years and for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant."

Appeal No. 8/97 : "To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- by way of compensation for the delay in deciding the claim after a period of 12 years and for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant".

The District Forum held that the opposite party was not rendering any service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act and that the complainants were not consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d). It dismissed the complaints as not maintainable. It further observed that the Commissioner of Payments will have to deal with the claims as per the provisions of the Act according to which the claims under Category III will be dealt with only after satisfying the claims under Categories I and II and that as long as these preferential categories have not been satisfied the Commissioner of Payments was not required to examine the claims under Category III.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum the complainants came before this Commission by way of appeal. The learned Counsel for the complainants would contend that the complainants have made deposits with the erstwhile textile mills as per the scheme devised by that mill and that the complainants were consumers vis-a-vis the mill, that such a status will not change on account on the taking over of the mill by the Government. He would further add that the sale price was payable by the Government to the previous owner, and that the liabilities of the owner were being paid by the Commissioner of Payments out of that sale price, that the Commissioner of Payments was standing in the place of the owner and that he was not exercising any judicial function as observed by the District Forum.

AS far as the merits of the case are concerned, the learned Counsel for the complainants would contend that the complainants were workmen of the mill and that the amounts deposited were the money paid by the mill and deposited upon the invitation of the mill and that therefore they would be a claim under Category No. 1 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the complainants would also contend that the Commissioner of Payments who is in-charge of disbursing the amounts dues by the erstwhile textiles mill had to finish his duty expeditiously, that having received the money from the Government in the year 1986 he cannot postpone the examination of the claims under Categories No. II and III indefinitely for the reason that he had not yet finished the claims under Category-1, even admitting that the claims of the complainants would come under Category-Ill. He would conclude that the inordinate delay in examining their claim amounts clearly to a deficiency in service causing loss to the complainants for which they were entitled to compensation. The learned Counsel for the opposite party would contend that the jurisdiction of the District Forum was shut by the provisions of Subsection (7) of Section 18 and Section 27 of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Under taking) Act, 1986. The learned Counsel for the opposite party would also contend that the claims of the complainants were premature since the claims of the complainants would fall under category-Ill and that all the creditors under Categories-1 and II have not been fully satisfied. We shall take up first the question of jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the opposite party would state that the provisions of Subsection (7) of Section 18 of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986, would oust the jurisdiction of the District Forum. That subsection provides that "a claimant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner may prefer an appeal against the decision to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction". This is a course open to the aggrieved person. But all those who come under the category of "consumer" may also approach the machinery under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. And as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act the remedy under the Act shall be in addition to the one provided in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, this contention fails.

IT was also contended by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that Section 27 of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986, will also prevent the complainants from approaching the District Forum. That section reads as follows : "Protection of action taken in good faith- No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government or the Corporation or any officer or other person authorised by the Corporation for anything which is, in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act".

This section does not in any manner affect the jurisdiction of the District Forum, which can be excluded only by way a notification contemplated under Sub-section 4 of Section 1 of the Act. The provision of law relied upon by the learned Counsel for the opposite party relates to maintainability. IT is meant to protect the officer in respect of anything done by him in good faith under the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Untertaking) Act, 1986. IT is a shield against any personal liability that one would be tempted to attach to the Commissioner of Payments. The present proceedings instituted before the District Forum by the complainants are not directed against the Commissioner of Payments for anything done by him. The complainants'' aim is only to obtain compensation for the delay in paying back their deposits. Such an action would by no stretch of imagination tantamounts to an action contemplated under Section 27 of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986. This contention also fails.

IN order to determine the jurisdiction of the District Forum one has to confine to the provisions of the Con sumer Protection Act, more particularly to Sub-section 2(1)(c) of the Act, where "complaint" is defined. If necessary, the definitions of the term "complainant" found in Sub-section 2(1)(b) may be perused. The word "consumer" referred to in Sub-section 2(1)(b) is defined in Sub-section 2(1)(d). That sub-section contains the words "goods" and "service", which are defined respectively in Sub-sections 2(1)(b) and 2(1)(o). These provisions indicate clearly what is within and what is outside the jurisdiction of the District Forum. With these definitions in mind let us turn to the facts of this case. The complainants have made fixed deposit in the erstwhile AngloFrench Textiles Limited which has conducted itself in this respect as a Bank. The deposits were to earn interest. It is universally admitted that depositors of money for interest are consumers. The complainants were obviously consumers visa-vis the undertaking. The fact that the Government has taken over the mill will not change the relationship between the parties. In fact upon taking over, the Government pays the sale price to the owner and is no longer in the picture. The law maker appears to have nurtured the apprehension that the company will take away the money and will not pay the creditors. So the law provides that instead of paying the money to the company the Government should deposit it in the Bank in the name of the Commissioner of Payments who is in-charge of disbursing the amounts due to the creditors and the balance to the company. The law has given instructions to the Commissioner of Payments as to how he has to act in the performance of his duty. So in the eye of law the money belongs to the previous owner and is managed by the Commissioner of Payments. If a judicial officer happens to be appointed to hold the office of the Commissioner of Payments that does not change the office into a judicial one. The charge consists essentially of distributing the money. So me complainants who were consumers at the time of the deposit, continue to be consumers, and the Commissioner of Payments is the proper person before whom they have to file claims, arising out of the deposit of money. Therefore, the District Forum had full jurisdiction to deal with deficiency in service if any in the form of unexplained delay.

However, it is made clear that the fact whether the complainants'' claim fall within Category I or II is beyond the purview of the District Forum. That is a matter to be decided by the Commissioner of Payments at the first instance; this decision on that point is subjet to appeal before the Principal Civil Court. What is to be looked into in this case, first is whether the Commissioner of Payments has conveyed to the complainants his decision on the classification of claims in time, to allow them to challenge it in appeal. The second point to be looked into is whether even if he has classified the claims of the complainant under Category III, he has dealt with them with sufficient diligence.

SINCE the complaint was not dealt on merits, and dismissed only as not coming within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, these appeals have to be treated as revision petitions and the matter sent back to the District Forum. However, since the District Forum has made certain remarks about which the learned Counsel for both the parties argued/ we shall say a few words on the same. After assuming office, the Commissioner of Payments has to fix a date before which all claims should be filed before him. This has been done and the date specified by the Commissioner to that effect is 2.6.1986. Secondly he has to classify the claims in the three categories provided in law and inform those who fall under Categories II and III. Thirdly he is expected to fix for himself target dates for finalising each of the categories. If any creditor has not taken diligent steps to file his claims before 2.6.1996, his claims, if any, has to be ignored. If after making hi s claim before the due date, he failed to take steps to process it as per me target fixed by the Commissioner, his claim will have to be dismissed. In this way the Commissioner of Payments should complete one category after another systematically. The preferential categories should not be a pretext to postpone indefinitely the consideration of the next categories. Such a course would be deficiency in service.

THE Commissioner of Payments is expected to act swifter than the previous owner to whom the money could have been directly paid. It the law maker has substituted the Commissioner of Payments to the owner, it is in the expectation that he will act better and more diligently in the disbursal of debts. THE performance of the Commissioner has to be appreciated in that perspective. THE District Forum will have to find out whether there is delay in the intimation of the classification of claims and in the disposal of claims, which would amount to deficiency in service and negligence. For that purpose, the number of cases filed before the scheduled date, namely 2.6.1986, the number of cases disposed of year-wise from that time and all other relevant considerations may be taken into account. If there is unjustified delay, that would amount to deficiency in service entitling the complainants to an order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act to remove the deficiency viz. to pay the amounts due. If there is also negligence, the complainants will be entitled to compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. Parties may make fresh submissions to the District Forum, if they are so advised. In the result, the appeals are treated as revision petitions and are allowed as such. The orders of the District Forum are set aside. The matters are remitted back to the District Forum for disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard again. Revision Petitions allowed.