State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shailendra Kumar Singh vs M/S Hcl Comnet Systems & Services Ltd & ... on 13 December, 2023
FA NO./158/2022 D.O.D.: 13.12.2023
MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution:09.09.2022
Date of Hearing:12.05.2023
Date of Decision:13.12.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.-158/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH,
S/o SH. B. N. P. SINGH,
R/o A1-1201, SAVIOR GREENISLE,
CROSSINGS REPUBLIK, GHAZIABAD,
DISTRICT GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201016.
(Appellant in Person)
...Complainant
VERSUS
1. M/S HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD,
806, SIDDARTH, 96 NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019.
(Through: SRCS Legal)
2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
DDA MARKET, SHEIKH SARAI,
DELHI-110017.
...Respondents
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 7
FA NO./158/2022 D.O.D.: 13.12.2023
MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Present: Appellant in person.
Mr. K.K. Sharma, counsel for the Respondent no. 1.
None for the Respondent no.2.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"The complainant has filed the present complaint against its Ex-employer i.e. OPI - HCL Comnet System and Services Limited and others. It is stated by him that OP I offered the complainant a Company Care Lease Scheme (CCLS). This scheme is based on the concept of leasing wherein the car would be leased to the employee for the period of three years and the employee would need to pay lease rentals per month based on the financed value of the car. Under the said scheme, the employee had to pay a certain percentage as margin money to dealer directly and thereafter balance amount would be financed by leasing company and at the end of the lease period, employee would be required to pay only certain percentage of the financed value of the car as residual value. After the three years period, the car would be transferred in the employee's name. The lease was for the period of three years the leasing company being the lessor and HCL Comnet i.e. OP 1 being the lessee.
DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 7 FA NO./158/2022 D.O.D.: 13.12.2023
MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES The complainant also opted for the scene wherein its duration was 36 months at the end of which the hypothecation was removed in 2011, registration certificate was updated but ownership was not transferred to the complainant by the OP. The complainant changed job and left the company on
02.07.2012. It is the case of the complainant that between 2012 to 2021 various verbal follow ups was done with the OP for transfer of vehicle but nothing happened. Written e-mail follow up was initiated on 15.09.2021 was only three months left for the expiry of the vehicle.
OPI asked for a NOC (No Objection Certificate) from the financer which though was not required, was provided to them on. 19.11.2021. On 23.11.2021 OP 1 has sent an indemnity bond of a stamp paper of Rs. 100/- which the complainant was not willing to give as according to the complainant it is arbitrary. The complainant has filed-the- present complaint for getting the transfer documents from OPI and also seeking compensation from them."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 16.08.2022, whereby it held as under:
"At the stage of admission of the complaint, the complainant was questioned regarding the admissibility of this complaint since it did not disclose a consumer dispute. The complainant provided some judgments and documents in support of his scheme however, the same are not sufficient and do not convince this Commission that a consumer dispute is raised by the complainant. This matter relates to an ex-employee -
DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 7 FA NO./158/2022 D.O.D.: 13.12.2023
MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES employer relationship and does not pertain to one of consumer availing services from the OP 1. As is apparent from the records, the complainant was an employee of the OPI and had taken Company Car Lease scheme (CCLS). He is now wanting to have the said car transferred in his name for that purpose, the OP has provided him the indemnity bond to be signed as a pre-requisite for providing the transfer documents. These facts do not disclose a consumer dispute."
3. The Appellant has challenged the aforesaid impugned order on the ground that the District Commission erroneously dismissed the said complaint without appreciating the ground that relation between the Respondent no. 1 and the Appellant was of seller and buyer. The Appellant further submitted that the District Commission failed to consider that despite the payment of all EMI's to Respondent no. 1, the Respondent no. 1 failed to provide the transfer documents of said car to the Appellant. Pressing the aforesaid contention, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission.
4. The Respondent, on the other hand, filed reply to the present appeal wherein, he denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that the Appellant does not falls within the definition of consumer as defined under section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and further submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the Appellant in person and the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the Respondent no. 1.
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 7 FA NO./158/2022 D.O.D.: 13.12.2023
MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES
6. The main question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission was right in dismissing the said complaint on the ground that the Appellant does not falls within the definition of consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
7. To comment on this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to the section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is as follows:
(7) "consumer" means any person who--
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
Explanation. --For the purposes of this clause, --
(a) the expression "commercial purpose " does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;
(b) the expressions "buys any goods " and "hires or avails any services " includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 7 FA NO./158/2022 D.O.D.: 13.12.2023
MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES
8. Further, we deem it appropriate to refer to the recent pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Of 2020 titled as ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Digamber Vaman Gurjar & Anr. decided on 17.07.2023, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission while dealing with the similar issue, has held as follows:
18. We have carefully gone through the rival contentions of parties on the maintainability of the complaint before the Consumer Fora as well as various case laws cited by the parties and all other relevant case record and tend to agree with the contentions of the Petitioner herein that Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint(s) as the parties are in a master-servant/employer-employee relationship and the employer/Petitioner herein has not provided 'service' as defined under the Act to its erstwhile employees/Respondents herein. Hence, the dispute/case in question does not constitute a consumer dispute and Respondents herein cannot be said to be consumer of any service provided by the Petitioner herein.
9. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the Consumer Commissions do not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaints related to master- servant/employer-employee relationship and the Employer/Respondent no. 1 herein has not provided any 'services' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to its erstwhile Employee/Appellant herein. Furthermore, the Appellant has failed to establish any deficiency on the part of Respondents, as in the present case, the Appellant intended to transfer ownership of the alleged car in his name, for which the Respondent no. 1 gave him with the indemnity bond, which is a pre-
DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 7 FA NO./158/2022 D.O.D.: 13.12.2023
MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES required step for transfer of documents. However, the Appellant failed to sign those indemnity bond. Therefore, it is clear that the Appellant failed to establish any deficiency on the part of the Respondents before the District Commission as well as before this Commission.
10. In view of the forgoing, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reason to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-X, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Udyog Sadan, C-22, 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
11. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Judgment.
13. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (J.P. AGRAWAL) MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced On:
13.12.2023 DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 7