National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shailendra Kumar Singh vs M/S Hcl Comnet Systems & Services Ltd on 16 May, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1223 OF 2024 (Against the Order dated 13/12/2023 in Appeal No. A/158/2022 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH A1-1201, SAVIOUR GREENISLE, CROSSINGS REPUBLIK GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD 806, SIDDARTH, 95 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI SOUTH DELHI 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT DDA EAST DELHI ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : MS. ANSHU, ADVOCATE AND
MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH, IN PERSON
Dated : 16 May 2024 ORDER
1. This Revision Petition No. 1223 of 2024 challenges the impugned order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi ('State Commission') dated 13.12.2023. Vide this order the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. 158 of 2022. In turn, this Appeal had been filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-X, Udyog Sadan, Delhi ('District Forum') dated 16.08.2022. Vide this order, the District Forum, dismissed the Complaint filed by the Petitioner.
2. The Petitioner/Complainant stated that he has filed the present complaint against its Ex-employer i.e. OP-I HCL Comnet System and Services Limited and others. OP-1 offered the Complainant a Company Care Lease Scheme (CCLS). As per the scheme, 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. The employee had to pay a percentage as margin money to dealer directly and thereafter balance amount would be financed by leasing company. At the end of the lease period, the employee would be required to pay only certain percentage of the financed value of the car as residual value. After three years period, the car would be transferred in the employee's name. The lease was for three years and the leasing company being the lessor and HCL Comnet i.e. OP-1 is the lessee. He also opted for the scheme wherein its duration was 36 months at the end of which the hypothecation was removed in 2011 and the registration certificate was updated. However, the ownership was not transferred to him by the OP. he 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 were done with OP for transfer of vehicle. But nothing happened. E-mail follow up was initiated on 15.09.2021 and by then only three months left for the expiry of the vehicle.
3. It is revealed from the records that in reply before the learned District Forum, the OP had sought NOC (No Objection Certificate) from the financer which though not required, was provided to them on 19.11.2021. On 23.11.2021 OP-1 forwarded an indemnity bond on Rs.100/- stamp paper which the complainant was not willing to give as he considered it arbitrary and he filed the present complaint seeking transfer documents from OP-I and compensation.
4. The learned District Forum vide order dated 16.08.2022 dismissed the Complaint by stating that this matter related to an ex-employee and employer relationship and the facts did not disclose a consumer dispute.
5. On Appeal, the State Commission, vide the order dated 13.12.2023 affirmed the District Forum order with reasons as below:
"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 fall 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 tele-shopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing
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 no 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 the part of Respondents, as in the present case, the Appellant intended 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-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-1 10016.
11. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs."
6. The learned District Forum passed a well-reasoned order dismissing the complaint and the learned State Commission dismissed the Appeal by well reasoned order primarily because this matter related to and admittedly an ex-employee - employer relationship and did not disclose a consumer dispute.
7. It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. From the facts stated, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order of the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Act. I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.
8. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as regards revisional Jurisdiction of NCDRC:-
"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. ....."
9. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:-
As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
10. Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed at this stage.
11. All pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
................................................................................... AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.) PRESIDING MEMBER