SENIOR TREASURY OFFICER, FAIZABAD vs BALDEO PRASAD MORYA

THIS appeal is filed against order dated 25th June, 1993 passed by District Forum, Faizabad in Complaint Case No. 516/92. The District Forum has directed the appellant to pay interest to the complainant respondent on the amount of his pension @ 14% per annum for the period between 10th November, 1988 to 30th July, 1991 as well as to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- by way of compensation to the complainant. The order was made on the ground that the matter relating to the pension amount of the complainant was kept pending and the amount was paid to the complainant with abnormal delay.

WE have heard Mr. M.H. Khan, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Prahlad for the complainant respondent. It has been argued by Mr. Khan that in a matter relating to pension the District Forum had no jurisdiction because it did not relate to any service for consideration extended by the appellant to the complainant. It has also been urged that though the delay of about three years took place yet it was on account of the lapse on the part of a clerk of appellant''s office whose services were later terminated by the District Officer on account of that lapse. A perusal of the order passed by District Forum shows that no objection whatsoever was taken on behalf of the appellant before the District Forum challenging the jurisdiction of the Forum. It is clear that the appellant acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the District Forum and took a chance of success before it. The appellant cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the jurisdiction of the District Forum which has made an order adverse to him.

In the decisions cited by Mr. Khan in the case of C.H. Veerabhadrayya v. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society, reported in III (1992) Consumer Protection Judgments Page 3 (NC) and the case of Manohar Lal v. Punjab State (Home Deptt.), reported in, I (1994) Consumer Protection Cases Page No. 635 objection to the jurisdiction had been taken at the initial stage itself.

THE order of the District Forum also reveals that the delay in disposing of the pension case and making payment of the amount thereof was not disputed on behalf of the appellant. In this situation we find no justification for interfering with the order passed by the District Forum which is pre-eminently just. We are not im pressed by the submission of Mr. Khan that the direction for payment of interest as well as compensation was not called for in the case. The appeal is dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs.

LET copies of this order be made available to the learned Counsel for the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.