Case nº Revision Petition No. 1393 Of 2011, (Against the Order dated 08/12/2010 in Appeal No. 1124/2010 of the State Commission Rajasthan) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, August 29, 2011 (case 1. Union of India and Ors. 2. Jcda (Funds), Meerut Cantt. 3. Dgos (Os-8c), Army Head Quarters 4. The Commandant Vs Ram Dayal)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Katyal, Adv. and For Respondents: Nemo
PresidentMr. R. C. Jain, Presiding Member and Mr. S. K. Naik, Member
Resolution DateAugust 29, 2011
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by fora below, Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence has filed this petition in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint before the District Consumer Forum was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties i.e. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence; JCDA (Funds), Meerut Cantt.; DGOS (OS-8C), Army Head Quarters; the Commandant, Ordinance Depot, Bharatpur, Rajasthan for their failure to disburse the amount of Rs.24,374/- lying in the Provident Fund account of the complainant. The opposite parties contested the complaint inter alia on the ground that that the District Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint like the present one filed by the complainant as the complainant was a Central Government employee even assuming that the amount of provident fund was not disbursed. The District Consumer Forum repelled the said objection and allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to remit a sum of Rs.24,374/- to the complainant with interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 13.07.2001 till its payment alongwith compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed by the State Commission by means of a cryptic and perfunctory order without even referring to the facts and circumstances of the case what to talk of dealing with any contention raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal.

We have heard Mr. Rajesh Katyal, learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent in person and have considered their respective submissions.

Leaned counsel for the petitioners on the strength of decision of this Commission in the batch of revision petition No. 961 of 1997-The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr. vs. Shiv Kant Shankar Naik, has urged that the consumer fora had erred in entertaining the complaint relating to the present grievance of the complainant. We find force in this...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT