Revision Petition No. 03 of 2014. Case: Surinder Kumar Mittal Vs State of Haryana. Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberRevision Petition No. 03 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: None
JudgesSham Sunder, J. (President), Dev Raj and Padma Pandey, Members
IssueConstitution of India - Article 309; Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 21(a)(ii)
CitationII (2014) CPJ 190 (UT Chd.)
Judgement DateMarch 03, 2014
CourtUnion Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Sham Sunder, J. (President)

  1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 17.9.2013, vide which, First Appeal No. 335 of 2013, titled as The State of Haryana and Another v. Surinder Kumar Mittal (now Revision-Petitioner), was accepted by this Commission, holding that the Consumer Complaint bearing No. 343 of 2012, was not maintainable, as the Complainant/Revision-Petitioner did not fall within the definition of a consumer. The facts, in brief, of the Consumer Complaint, bearing No. 343 of 2012, are that the complainant was in service of the State of Haryana. He served the State of Haryana, for the period from 14.1.1977 to 20.4.2003, and, ultimately, retired. Being a permanent employee of the State of Haryana, the complainant was entitled to the contractual obligations, as contained in the Civil Services Rules, and various other commitments, issued from time-to-time. The opposite parties had issued letter dated 20.7.1981, for the grant of special increment, in the form of personal pay, which was accepted by the complainant on 31.3.1986. It was stated that despite a speaking order, passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in CWP No. 8058 of 2009, the Opposite Parties did not release the amount of personal pay, which included the special increment--an incentive for family planning, though the complainant qualified for the same. It was further stated that non-compliance with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, referred to above, by the opposite parties, amounted to commission of contempt of Court, It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, the aforesaid complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the opposite parties, to pay the actual amount of personal pay, to which he is entitled, since 20.4.2003, along with interest @ 18% p.a., till realization; ten times compensation, on the amount prayed for above; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs. 20,000.

  2. The opposite parties, in their joint written version, pleaded that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer. It was further pleaded that since the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer, the District...

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