State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
J.Naveen Krishnaa, Sakkarakottai, ... vs Deputy Director Assistant Director Of ... on 8 September, 2023
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present
Date of appeal filed: 27.01.2023
THIRU. S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.35/2023
FRIDAY, THE 08th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023.
I.Naveen Krishnaa,
S/o K.Iayaraman,
1/264, 4th house 1st Floor,
Chandra Bakery Complex,
Mahasakthi Nagar, 4th Street,
Sakkarakottai Village,
Ramanathapuram - 623 503. Appellant/Complainant
-Vs-
The Deputy Director/Assistant Director,
Ex-Servicemen's Welfare,
Sri Nagar Colony,
Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. Respondent/Opposite Party
Counsel for Appellant/Complainant : In-Person.
Counsel for Respondent/Opposite Party : Mr.D.Makson Lobo,Govt.Pleader.
This appeal has been preferred by the complainant (in-person) against the order
passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai made in
C.C.Sr.No.134/2022, dated 25.08.2022. This appeal coming before me for final hearing on
08.09.2023 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:
2
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.(OPEN COURT)
1. The Facts:
The complainant in his complaint alleged that he worked under the opposite party/Ex-Servicemen's welfare office with effect from 24.05.1999 to 30.06.2002. Then, he transferred to Chennai with effect from 01.07.2002 to 31.03.2003. Bonus of Rs.3500/- was declared in the month of January 2004 for those who worked a minimum of 240 days in the 2002-2003 financial year. Hence the complainant is eligible to get Pongal bonus/Ex-gratia but he was not paid the bonus. He sent a petition to the opposite party on 06.07.2022. No response from the opposite party. Hence he filed the complaint.
2. The District Commission in the admission stage itself had held that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint has been filed after the prescribed period of 2 years and the complaint is rejected.
3. Aggrieved with the above rejected order, this appeal has been preferred by the complainant on the following:
Grounds: That, the order the District Commission is erroneous and liable to set aside.
4. In this case, the appellant was heard. The respondent/opposite party filed their written arguments and request to treat it as their oral arguments. The opposite party submits in the written argument that the complainant has worked under the 3 Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare as Assistant (Grade-I) and the relationship between the complainant and the opposite party is only employee and employer relationship. And if at all the complainant had any grievances during his work period he had ample of time to restore the same by making proper application before the opposite party. But without utilizing the appropriate opportunity now after a long period of nearly 20 years the complainant has approached this Commission without clean hands. Hence, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and the opposite party. Further, the opposite party on scrutinizing the service record of the complainant had observed that the appellant/complainant had attended only 127 days out of 240 days during the financial year 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003,and it makes him ineligible for the said Pongal Bonus (2004). Hence they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Though, the appellant also submitted a detailed version of his case along with some documents the core question to be decided is whether an employee can file a consumer complaint against his employer for non-payment of Pongal Bonus.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the appeal is to be allowed?
7. Discussion on the Point: As stated earlier, it is an admitted case of the complainant that he was not paid Pongal Bonus even though he worked for 240 days in the concerned year i.e., from 01.07.2002 to 31.03.2003. It is his case he worked at the Chennai office and entitled to the bonus of Rs.3500/- which is to be paid in the month of January 2004.
4
8. Admittedly the complaint has been preferred in the year 2022 i.e., after 18 years. Though there were many correspondence it will not extend limitation. So the rejection of unnumbered complaint by the District Commission found valid in an yet another point of limitation also.
9. Apart from that, it is the findings of the District Commission that he is not a consumer. This finds support from the following recent decision cited as UNION OF India & ORS .Vs. RAM DAYAL, I(2012) CPJ 9 (NC), Hon'ble National Consumer Commission held the employee not a consumer of his employer with the following observations:-
Learned Counsel for the petitioners on the strength of decision of this Commission in the batch of Revision Petition No.961 of 1997, The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr. V. Shiv Kant Shankar Naik, I (2003) CPJ 276 (NC), has urged that the Consumer Fora had erred in entertaining the complaint relating to the present grievance of the complainant. We find force in this contention because admittedly the complainant was employed as a Fire Engine Driver in the ordnance depot under the Ministry of Defence and, therefore, he was a Central Government employee within the meaning of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which is prior in time. This legislation provides for the redressal of the grievance of the employees of the central Government employee. Taking note of the provisions of the said Act this Commission in the above noted case had clearly held that the dispute raised by the complainant was not a consumer dispute nor the complainant was a consumer as the Accountant General was not rendering any service to the complainant within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This decision was followed with the approval in revision petition No.3878 of 2009, Om Parkash Sethi .Vs. Accountant General, Haryana (A & E), III (2010) CPJ 289 (NC) = decided on 6.7.2010, thereby making a clearcut distinction between the case that comes under the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and otherwise. 5
10. Similarly in another case, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Narbada Devi .Vs. H.P. State Forest Corp. . on 22 March, 2021 Has held that Further, that the deceased was an employee of Respondent No.1- HPSFC and not a consumer since the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act excludes from its ambit services rendered under the contract of employment between employer and employee and hence the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act qua the Respondent No.1- HPSFC.
11. So, as per the above Judgements the order of the District Commission in rejecting the complaint without numbering found impeachable and there is no necessity to interfere with its finding and the order of the District Commission is confirmed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed without cost and answered the point accordingly.
12. In the result,
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The order passed by the District Commission, Madurai, made in C.C.Sr.No.134/2022, dated 25.08.2022 is hereby confirmed.
3. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Dictated to the Steno-typist on this the 08th day of September 2023 in open court transcribed and typed by her and corrected.
Sd/-xxxxxxxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 6 Corrected 7