ORDER Justice Surjit Singh (Retd.), President (Oral) By means of the present appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, appellant Standard Chartered Bank, New Delhi, has assailed the order dated 20th September, 2006, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent D.R. Sood, who was earlier an employee of the appellant and is now its pensioner, has been allowed and a sum of ‘1,06,455/-, has been ordered to be paid to the respondent together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of his medical reimbursement claim. 2. Admitted facts are that the respondent was employee with the appellant, before he attained the age of superannuation and retired. It appears from the averments made in the complaint instituted by the respondent before learned District Forum, that being a pensioner of the appellant, he is entitled to medical reimbursement. He submitted a claim for ‘1,06,455/-, to the appellant alleging that he had spent that much amount of money on his medical treatment. 3. Notices were sent to the present appellant and two other offices of Standard Chartered Bank having offices at Mumbai and Kolkata. Notices were duly served upon the offices at Mumbai and Kolkata. With regard to the notice sent to the present appellant, presumption was drawn that the registered cover sent to the present appellant having not been received back, stood delivered to it. So, the present appellant was proceeded exparte. Other two respondents did not put in appearance. So they two were proceeded exparte. Complaint went uncontested. It was allowed, vide impugned order and the appellant was directed to reimburse the medical claim of respondent D.R. Sood. 4. Present appeal was filed, after the expiry of limitation period. An application was moved for condonation of delay. Same was dismissed by this Commission, vide order dated 24th December, 2009. Revision against the aforesaid order of this Commission was filed before the Hon’ble National Commission. That Revision Petition has been allowed by the Hon’ble National Commission, vide order dated 6th December, 2010. An application, under section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed by the appellant for condonation of delay has been allowed and the appeal ordered to be disposed of on merits. 5.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. An application, under section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed by the appellant for condonation of delay has been allowed and the appeal ordered to be disposed of on merits. 5.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. The first and foremost question that has been raised on behalf of the appellant, is with regard to the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum to entertain and adjudicate upon the claim of the respondent. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent is only a pensioner of the appellant and his claim for medical reimbursement cannot clothe him with the status of a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, nor can the rejection of such claim by the appellant take the dispute within the realm of ‘consumer dispute’ as defined in Section 2(1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 7. Learned counsel representing the respondent, submits that this Commission has already held in an earlier matter between the same parties, i.e. Appeal No.350/2007, titled Shri D.R. Sood versus Standard Chartered Bank Limited, decided on 27.07.2009, that the District Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute arising out of non-clearing of medical reimbursement claim of a pensioner. 8.A bare reading of the order dated 27th July, 2009, sought to be used as precedent by the learned counsel for the respondent, indicates that this Commission did not rule authoritatively that the Consumer Fora have the jurisdiction to decide this kind of claims, though it did allow the appeal filed by the respondent and ordered the payment of money claimed as medical reimbursement by the respondent. After noticing the submission made on behalf of the appellant in the aforesaid case, sought to be used as precedent, this Commission observed as follows in para 17 of its order:- “Assuming everything to be correct including the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Foras in the State of Himachal Pradesh to entertain and try the complaint, even then keeping in view the meager sum involved in this case, should or should not the respondents be allowed to contest the claim more especially in the light of the above extracted order. In the circumstances of this case, in our opinion if the appellant is allowed to file a regular suit it will multiplying the litigation which would be not in accordance with the public policy. Thus we thing that this appeal deserves to be allowed by rejecting all the pleas raised on behalf of the respondents while challenging the jurisdiction of the Fora under the Act to entertain the complaint.” 9. To allow the appeal and consequently the complaint of the respondent in the aforesaid case, this Commission placed reliance upon certain cases decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, as also the Hon’ble Supreme Court involving disputes between the employees who had been contributing to the provident fund and the authorities constituted under the Provident Fund Act. Those were not the disputes, between the employee and the employees. Provident Fund Authorities were held to be service providers and the employees of other Bodies/Institutions contributing provident fund were held to be availers of such service. It was because of this relationship between the authorities under the Provident Fund Act and the employees of other bodies, subscribing to provident fund, that such employees were held to be “consumers”. 10. In the present case, employee is seeking reimbursement of medical expenses from his employer in accordance with the Rules governing his service conditions/post retirement matters. He can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a “consumer” of any service under his former employer, i.e. the present appellant. 11. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned District Consumer Forum, Shimla, and dismiss the complaint. 12.Disposed of. 13.One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.