AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. V.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Above revision petition has been filed from the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi dated 05.03.2021, passed in FA/360/2019, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
As per report of the Registry, the revision petition has been filed with a delay of 25 days, for which the petitioner has filed IA/6606/2023 for condonation of delay. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice of final orders was given to him. Copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner on 29.07.2022 and the revision petition was filed on 28.10.2022. The explanation given by the petitioner is quite satisfactory, therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned and the revision petition is treated to be filed within limitation.
Sri R.K. Sharma filed consumer complaint No.137 of 2017 with the District Forum for directing the opposite parties to (a) release the payment of Rs.750000/- with compound interest of 24% from the date of retirement i.e. 31.10.2016; (b) pay the damages of Rs.2 lakhs for wilful mental and physical harassment to the complainant; (c) pay the legal expenses of Rs.50000/- for filing the complaint; and (d) put the exemplary cost on opposite party indulging in malafide, unfair and restrictive activities against the provisions of law.
The complainant was a member of Oriental Insurance Employees Welfare Society and contributing to death relief scheme and retirement benefit scheme. On retirement of the complainant on 31st October, 2016, his retirement benefits were not paid to him. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed complaint No.137 of 2017 with the District Commission.
The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing the written reply stating that the complainant was not a consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant had concealed the fact that he was not retired from the service but he was terminated, therefore, he was not entitled for any benefit as per circular No.HO/OIEWS/CR-6175/2007 dated 16/04/2007. As per clause 8 of the circular, the membership was ceased on termination from service. The opposite parties acted in accordance with law and there was no deficiency in service on their part.
The District Commission, vide order dated 08.05.2019 dismissed the complaint with the observation that the complainant did not approach the District Commission with clean hands and concealed the material fact that he was terminated from the service and did not retire on superannuation. As per provisions of the scheme, the member was not eligible for any benefit on termination or dismissal from the service.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, the petitioner filed First Appeal No.360/2019 with the State Commission with which was dismissed, vide order dated 05.03.2021. Hence, the petitioner has the present revision petition.
I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. Counsel for the petitioner contended that both the fora below failed to appreciate that the complainant was a member of Oriental Insurance Employees Welfare Society and regularly paying subscription for retirement benefits. After receiving the regular subscription, the opposite party cannot deny the retirement benefits to its members.
Facts of the case are admitted by the parties. The only dispute is whether on termination from service, the petitioner was entitled for retirement benefits or not. As per provisions of the scheme, a member was entitled for Rs.75000/- as death benefit relief; Rs.30000/- as retirement benefit; and Rs.15000/- on voluntary retirement. In the scheme, there is no provision for any benefit on termination of service. In the scheme it is also specified that on termination or dismissal from service, the membership would stand ceased.
Findings of fact recorded by the Fora below that the complainant was not entitled for any benefit due to termination from service is based on the provisions of the scheme and do not suffer from any illegality. The complainant also tried to mislead the District Commission by supressing the material fact that he was not retired on superannuation but he was terminated from the service. Therefore, the District Commission was justified in dismissing the complaint and the State Commission also rightly dismissed the appeal of the complainant and concurred with the findings of the District Commission. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two foras below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
ORDER
In view of aforementioned discussions, the revision petition is dismissed.