AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 295 words-THIS is an appeal against the order dated 11.7.2003 passed by the District Forum, Rudraprayag whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed.
IN this appeal the only allegation was that the complainant is not a consumer and the non-payment of pension, provident fund, gratuity and life insurance is not a consumer dispute. It is true and we are supported by the rulings reported in I (2003) CPJ 276 (NC)=2003 (2) CLD 602 (NC), Controller and Auditor General of INdia v. Sheo Kant Shanker Naik. IN this ruling, it has been held that the Accountant General does not provide or render any service. It was further held in this ruling that where there is any dispute regarding service conditions, that are to be adjudicated by services and administrative Tribunals and by Consumer Forums. The same view has been upheld in the ruling reported in IV (2003) CPJ 136 (NC)=2004 (7) CLD 290 (NC), Shaila Mukherjee v. Kashi Vidyopitti. Since the dispute did not lie before the learned Forum, the judgment given by the learned Forum is without jurisdiction and shall be deemed to be not existing in the eyes of law.
These types of disputes can be raised before the Services Tribunal and the complainant is free to file a suit before the Services Tribunal under the provisions of law. In case, any such case is filed before the learned Services Tribunal, the judgment given by the learned Forum or this Commission shall in no way will prejudice the "rights and title" to the complainant. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 11.7.2003 is hereby quashed. The complaint is also dismissed. This is without any prejudice to the rights of the parties. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed.