9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission ) dismissing the Revision Petitions filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition. Both the Revision Petitions were dismissed on the ground that the delay had not been sufficiently explained. Though in these two Special Leave Petitions it is the order rejecting the Revision Petitions on ground of delay that is involved, ultimately, it is the order of the State Commission allowing the claim of the respondents concerned which is the subject matter of all these five matters. Furthermore, the effect of the orders passed by the National Commission in all these five matters is the same in respect of the different petitioners before the District Forum and it is their claim which has been upheld right through up to the National Commission. 3. Leave is accordingly granted in the Special Leave Petitions and all the appeals are taken up for hearing together. 4. For the sake of convenience the facts relating to Civil Appeal No.6447/2001 are taken into for consideration in order to decide the common issues in these matters. 5. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Family Pension Fund Scheme, 1971, showed her date of birth as 24.9.1932. It was contended that according to the information provided by Bhavani herself she had attained the age of 60 years on 24.9.1992 and was not, therefore, entitled to the benefits of the 1995 Employees Pension Scheme. 7. The District Forum rejected the case made out on behalf of the appellant herein on a scrutiny of the various documents submitted on behalf of Bhavani to establish that her date of birth in the records of the company was 31.12.1935. The District Forum came to a finding that since Bhavani was eligible for the benefits of the 1995 Scheme, denial of the same amounted to deficiency of service which would attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum on considering the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, observed that the definition of consumer therein was not exhaustive and Section 2(1)(o) exempts only such services as are rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service. 8. The District Forum also rejected the said contention of the appellant herein upon holding that the service rendered by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainment of superannuation was all the more inadmissible and the order passed by the District Forum, which was upheld up to the National Commission to direct the appellant herein to correct its records relating to the date of birth of the respondent, was erroneous and could not be sustained. 15. In this regard, various decisions of this Court were referred to by Dr. Padia in support of his contention that contract of personal service or a service rendered free of charge would not attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dr. Padia urged that the services rendered by the appellant to the respondent amounted to personal service which was of a free nature and would not, therefore, attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act on both counts. According to Dr. Padia, the respondent could at best have asked for pensionary benefits under the 1971 Employees Family Pension Scheme which had been replaced by the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. 16. Dr. Padia lastly urged that the District Forum had no jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act to direct alteration of the date of birth of a member which was recorded in the records of the appellant, and, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such contributions were received, even though according to the records of the appellant the respondent had retired on 31.12.1992, so as to make her ineligible for the 1995 Employees Pension Scheme which came into operation on and from 1st April, 1993. 20. Dr. Padia s submissions regarding the non-applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to the case of the respondent must also be rejected on account of the fact that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who is the person responsible for the working of the 1995 Pension Scheme, must be held to be a service giver within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Nor is this a case of rendering of free service or rendering of service under a contract of personal service so as to bring the relationship between the appellant and respondent within the concept of master and servant . In our view, the respondent comes squarely within the definition of consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant for implementation of the Scheme. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
