Orders on Admission

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying for issue of direction to the OPs to pay the salary and allowance in favour of complainant for a period of against 10 years from 1.7.1990 in the cadre of Group ‘D’.

2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that;

                    The complainant was one of the applicant in Application No.254-263/2001 before the Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Bangalore and the Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Bangalore has allowed the application as per order dated 15.4.2002.  So far, the said order has not been set aside by any of the competent court or authority.   Therefore, the said order becomes final.   Though the order has been passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Bangalore in favour of complainant, the OPs have not yet issued any order of appointment in favour of complainant under Group ‘D’.   Therefore, the complainant is entitled to Rs.2,90,000/- and in all Rs.4,95,000/- from OPs.  Hence, the OPs may be directed to pay the said amount of Rs.4,95,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum.  

3. After filing the complaint, the case was posted for hearing on admission and also maintainability of the complaint before this Forum, but neither the complainant nor her GPA holder has appeared before this Forum and addressed the arguments.  Therefore, the arguments on maintainability and admission on complainant’s side taken as heard. 
4. We have perused the records.  The following points that have been arisen for our consideration; 

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer within the meaning and definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986?

2. Whether the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable before this Forum and thereby fit for admission?

3. What order?

5. Our answer to the above said points are as under;

1. In the Negative.    

2. In the Negative.         

3. As per final order below; 

:: REASONS ::

6. Point No.1 and 2 :-

                    The complainant was one of the applicant in Application No.254-263/2001 before the Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Bangalore and the Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Bangalore has allowed the application as per order dated 15.4.2002.  So far, the said order has not been set aside by any of the competent court or authority.   Therefore, the said order becomes final.   Though the order has been passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Bangalore in favour of complainant, the OPs have not yet issued any order of appointment in favour of complainant under ‘D’ Group.  

7. The GPA holder of the complainant has produced following citations along with complaint;

1. 2018 (1) CPR 340 (NC) (Vasant Janardan Aher V/s. Smita Shivajirao Kawale and Another)
2. 2010 (2) AIR Kar R 230 (Smt. Susheelamma V/s. Accountant General A & E, Pension Division, Karnataka and another)
3. ILR 2008 KAR 4651 (Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and Another V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others).
4. ILR 2008 KAR 5009 (Prabha Mathur and Another V/s. Pramod Aggarwal and others)
5. Order passed in WP 38489/95.
6. ILR 2008 KAR 5009 (Prabha Mathur and Another V/s. Pramod Aggarwal and others).

          We have gone through the said citations, pleadings and the documents filed by the complainant.

8. In order to maintain the complaint before this Forum, the complainant must be a Consumer within the meaning and definition of Sec.2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 reads thus;

4. "consumer" means any person who—

9. 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

2. hires or avails of any services 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 services 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 services for any commercial purposes;

Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment; 

9. On perusal of the entire pleadings and documents, nowhere we have come across that, the complainant has purchased the goods for consideration or agreed to purchase the goods by paying part consideration amount or availed the services by paying consideration or part consideration amount.  Even the case of the complainant is not coming within the explanation attached to the Sec.2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Therefore, the complainant cannot be called as a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum and as such, the same is not a fit to be admitted before this Forum.

10. This Forum is not having jurisdiction to execute the orders passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore.  Since the complainant wants to execute the orders passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore before this Forum by way of seeking for salary and allowances, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum and as such it is not a fit case for admission.

11. We have gone through the decisions submitted by the GPA Holder of the complainant.  Perused the said decisions i.e.,

1. 2018 (1) CPR 340 (NC) (Vasant Janardan Aher V/s. Smita Shivajirao Kawale and Another)
2. 2010 (2) AIR Kar R 230 (Smt. Susheelamma V/s. Accountant General A & E, Pension Division, Karnataka and another)
3. ILR 2008 KAR 4651 (Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and Another V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others).
4. ILR 2008 KAR 5009 (Prabha Mathur and Another V/s. Pramod Aggarwal and others)
5. Order passed in WP 38489/95.
6. ILR 2008 KAR 5009 (Prabha Mathur and Another V/s. Pramod Aggarwal and others)

12. We have gone through the decisions submitted by the said GPA holder of complainant.   In the decision reported in i.e.,                   2018 (1) CPR 340 (NC) (Vasant Janardan Aher V/s. Smita Shivajirao Kawale and Another), the Hon’ble National Commission has discussed about the enforcement of the award passed by the District Consumer Forum and Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission, but in the present case, which is on our hand, the complainant is seeking for issuing of direction to pay the amount of the alleged salary and other allowances to the complainant.   There is no order passed by the District Consumer Forum or Hon’ble State Commission or Hon’ble National Commission in favour of complainant and as such the facts involved in the said decision case and the facts involved in the present case are totally different.  Therefore, having great respect on the said decision, we humbly submit that, the said decision is not coming to the aid of the complainant, in the present case.

13. We have also gone through the decision reported in 2010 (2) AIR Kar R 230 (Smt. Susheelamma V/s. Accountant General A & E, Pension Division, Karnataka and another), the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has laid down a dictum that, the husband of the writ petitioner had expired immediately after retirement and as such the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has laid down a dictum that the widow is entitled to the pensionary benefits with interest @ 18% per annum.   The facts involved in the said decision case and the facts involved in the present case, which is on our hand are totally different.  Therefore, having great respect on the said decision, we respectfully submit that, the said decision is not coming to the aid of the complainant, in the present case.

14. We have also gone through the decision reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4651 (Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and Another V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others).  The said case was based upon the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.   The said facts are totally different than the facts of the case which is on our hand.   Hence, the said decision is not come to the aid of complainant in the present case.

15. The Writ Petition 38489/95 (GM) (Vajrappa V/s. B.R.Nagabhushan) is pertaining to register the lands in Sy.No.38, 130 and 271 of Begur village, Sy.No.47 of Bilekahalli and Sy.No.101 of Bettadasanapura in the name of respondent No.1 to 3 therein.  In the said Writ Petition, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore has not dealt with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   Therefore, the said Writ Petition is not applicable.  Hence, having great respect on the said decision, we respectfully submit that, the said decision is not coming to the aid of the complainant, in the present case.

16. In the decision i.e., Civil Appeal No.6208/2010 (State of Karnataka and Others V/s. M.L. Kesari and Others), the fact of appointment of parties were involved, but it appears that, in the said decision, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 have not been invoked.  Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the present case.  Hence, having great respect on the said decision, we respectfully submit that, the said decision is not coming to the aid of the complainant, in the present case.

17. We have gone through the decision submitted by the complainant i.e., ILR 2008 KAR 5009 (Prabha Mathur and Another V/s. Pramod Aggarwal and others).  In the said decision also, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 have not been involved in the said decision.  Hence,  having great respect on the said decision, we respectfully submit that, the said decision is not coming to the aid of the complainant, in the present case.

18. Since, the complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning and definition of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, we humbly submit that, the said decisions are not coming to the aid of the complainant, in the present case.   Hence, the said decisions are also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.  Hence, the Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the negative.

19. Point No.3 :

                   For the reasons stated above, we proceed to pass the following; 

:: ORDER ::

                    The complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as against the OP No.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.  

                   Under the circumstances of the case, we pass no order in respect of costs.