KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIOM, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL.1035/2003 JUDGMENT DATED : 25.10.08 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER M/s Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., :APPELLANT Wallardie Estate, Vandiperiyar, Idukki, represented By the Manager. (By Adv.A.M.Shafique) Vs. C.R.Ramesh No.3103 : RESPONDENT Division No.4, Dymukka.P.O., Vandiperiyar. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.120/03 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation for deficiency in service and also Rs.1000/- as cost etc. to the complainant. 2. It is the case of the complainant that himself and his wife were permanent workers of Company of which the opposite party is the Manager. They were remitting subscriptions under the CTD scheme at the post office and the amounts were deducted by the Company from their salary. Complainant and his wife applied for availing loan from CTD account. The authorities informed that the loan could not be granted since they are defaulters. When they approached the opposite party it was found that the amounts deducted from the salary were not deposited in the CTD account They had applied loan for redeeming a gold loan availed from the bank. They could not redeem the gold ornaments worth Rs.15,000/- pledged in the bank and the same were lost. 3. On the other hand the opposite party/appellant had contended that the company and the postal department are necessary parties and the proceedings are bad for non joinder. The complainant had asked the company to deduct Rs.150/- from their wages and to forward it to the respective CTD accounts. The company was deducting the same. It is purely a gratuitously service. Due to the financial crisis the tea industry company was not able to pay wages to its workers and hence certain payments were not made to the CTD accounts. The case of the failure to redeem the gold loan has no nexus with the undertaking to deposit in the CTD account. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P1(b). 5. The contention raised by the appellant is that the complainant is not a consumer so for as the appellant is concerned . The company was only doing a gratuitous service. According to the appellant the complaint in the instant case falls in the category of reverse consumer. It is also pointed out that the maximum amount to be deposited in the CTD for the relevant period would work out to Rs.4,200/- that is, at the rate of Rs.300/- for both the complainants together for 14 months. The failure to redeem the gold loan is only a consequential damage if any and the complainant is not entitled for compensation in this regard. 6. We find the contention of the opposite party/appellant that undertaking to deduct and deposit in CTD accounts is only gratuitous service stands not contraverted. In the circumstance we find that there is no consideration for the arrangement alleged even without considering the contention that no salary was paid for the above period due to financial constraints. Hence in the absence of consideration for the services availed we find that the complainant can not be considered as a consumer. The above aspect raised in the version filed was not at all considered. In the result the order of the forum is set aside. The appeal is allowed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
