AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Singh, J.
This revision has been filed by the complainant - revisionist under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 07.04.2016 of the State Commission.
As stated by the complainant - revisionist in his revision petition, he was Branch Manager with the respondent no.1 - Dena Bank. A criminal complaint against him was investigated by CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation), but he was (ultimately) acquitted. In (separate) disciplinary proceedings he was dismissed from service as punishment vide order dated 11.09.2001, and his departmental appeal was rejected by Dena Bank, against which his petition is pending before Hon'ble High Court. The Bank released his own contribution in his E.P.F (Employee Provident Fund) on 06.01.2004. The full contribution i.e. inclusive of the Bank's contribution was not released. (Para 3 (ii) to (vii) of his revision petition.)
The sum and substance of the complainant's case was that both his own as well as the Bank's contribution should have been released immediately on his dismissal, the Bank's contribution should not have been withheld, interest for delay in releasing his E.P.F. should have been paid, failure to do so was deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of Dena Bank's contention was that the complainant was investigated but ultimately acquitted in a criminal case, in separate disciplinary proceedings he was dismissed from service as punishment, under the rules he was not entitled to the Bank's contribution towards his E.P.F., he was not entitled to any interest on his own contribution, the relationship between the complainant and the Bank was of employee - employer, he was not a 'consumer' under section 2(1) (d) of the Act 1986.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 09.10.2015 dismissed the complaint as being barred by time. In appeal the State Commission vide its Order dated 07.04.2016 concurred with the District Forum that the complaint was barred by time.
I have heard the learned counsels for the revisionist-complainant and the respondents no.1 & 2 - Dena Bank, and perused the record.
Section 24-A of the Act which prescribed the limitation period is as below:
Section 24A. Limitation period. - (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
The State Commission's Order dated 07.04.2016 is well-appraised and well-reasoned. Detailed examination of the issue of limitation has been made in paras 13 to 17. The State Commission has arrived at the finding that the cause of action arose on 06.01.2004. The complaint was filed on 19.08.2011. This was well beyond the two - year period stipulated under Section 24-A of the Act 1986.
Section 21 (b) of the Act under which the revision has been filed is as below:
To call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
After re-appraising the evidence, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum. Grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision, is not visible. On the face of it, a jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is not visible.
The whole case of the complainant in revision before this Commission is that delay in filing the complaint should have been (and should be) condoned. He has quoted case laws of Hon'ble Supreme Court [para 3 xii) b), c) of his revision], which are of the years 2008 and 1984. The complaint was filed in 2011. The District Forum passed its Order in 2015. The State Commission passed its Order in 2016. The case laws cited are prior thereto. There was sufficient opportunity to the complainant to produce these case laws and to argue his case in entirety at the due time before the District Forum when he filed his complaint and / or before the State Commission when he availed the opportunity of appeal.
This is a case in which the complainant faced charges relating to corruption and financial malfeasance while working in a nationalized bank. In departmental proceedings he was awarded punishment of dismissal from service, his departmental appeal was rejected, and his petition is pending before Hon'ble High Court. No case whatsoever is made out for providing relaxation in limitation. Neither any compelling factor, and nor any mitigating factor, is visible therefor. No case law applicable to the facts and specificities of this case as may cause a contrary view to be formed has been made available.
There is no reason evident to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission.
Other questions, of whether or not the complainant was a consumer under the Act 1986 or whether or not there was any substance in his complaint etc., do not require to be examined and determined under revisional jurisdiction of this Commission when the complaint has been (correctly) dismissed by the District Forum on the preliminary issue of limitation and the said decision has been upheld in appeal by the State Commission and is not being interfered with in revision by this Commission.
It is seen that the entire exercise by the complainant before this Commission was to anyhow (and erroneously) get enabled to attempt additional remedy under the Act 1986 (ref.: Section 3 of the Act).
The revision petition is dismissed.