Before,

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna

Appeal  No. 360 of 2019

Md. Nurain,

S/o- Nasruddin Malik Sahab Guest House,

R.B. Hardware, Azad Bag Mathia,

P.S.- Chhatauni,

District - East Champaran.

                                                                    ............... Appellant/Opposite Party

                                      Versus

Md. Yakoob,

S/o- Late Md. Ishaque,

Sakin sighia Sagar Ward no-1,

P.O.- Chailaha,P.S.- Vanjaria,

District- East Champaran.                           ........... Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant- Mr. Satyendra Kumar Dubey, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent - Mr. Shambhu Saran Singh, Advocate

Before:

Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member)

Mr. Raj Kuamr Pandey (Member)

Mr. Subodh Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member)

Dated: 28.07.2022

Order

Mr. Subodh Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member)

1.                            This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Forum, Motihari, East Champaran, (henceforth, mentioned as District Commission), whereby  opposite party/appellant has been ordered to make payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- outstanding amount of wages in favour of the complainant/respondent.
2.                               Facts of the case as per complaint petition, in short, is that respondent/complainant was an employee (Manager) for the period from 02.06.2016 to 02.03.2018 in the Guest House of the appellant/OP at Rs. 8000/- per month along with food. O.P. did not pay his salary for 25 months. When he demanded his outstanding amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from O.P., he ousted him from work and refused to pay anything. Complainant has also sought relief for the reimbursement of Rs. 20,000/- to meet out the physical harassment and litigation cost.
3.                        Whereas, appellant has admitted that respondent was working in his Guest House, but it was agreed at Rs. 4000/- per month along with food. He had worked from 02.06.2016 to 01.01.2018. During work respondent had taken loan of Rs.4,00,000/- out of which Rs. 348,000/- were given through  cheques and Rs. 52,000/- were cash. He had assured to return the amount soon. His work at the guest house was not satisfactory, as there were several complaints about theft of residents’ articles from their rooms. He was warned for that, but his behavior did not change. Appellant was under compulsion to continue him, as he had already taken a huge amount in advance. When appellant asked him to refund the loan amount, he left the work and filed this false case, so that he would not have to return the loan amount. Appellant’s further case is that learned District Commission below failed to appreciate that it is not a case of “Consumer Dispute”, because complainant does not come within the definition of “Consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter mentioned as  Act 1986)
4.                          Both parties were heard. Learned District Forum below by its impugned order has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 200,000/-, so called dues of respondent’s wages. So, it is admitted fact that respondent was an employee (Manager) in the Guest House of the appellant. Now, this Commission is  to decide, whether the matter of salary and wages comes under the “consumer dispute”, and is respondent  a “Consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ?
5.                           In Oxford Dictionary a “consumer” is defined as a purchaser of goods or services. In Concise Oxford Dictionary consumer means user of an article. In Black’s Dictionary it is explained to mean, one who consumes, individuals who purchase, use, maintain and dispose of products and services.  Section 2(1) (d) of the Act 1986 defines consumer. This definition contains two parts. The first deals with goods and the other with services. Both parts declare the meaning of goods and services by use of wide expression. The ambit is further enlarged by use of exclusive clause. For instance, it is not only purchaser of goods or hirer of services but even those who use the goods or who are beneficiaries of services with approval of the person who purchased or who hired the services are included in it.
6.                             Contract of service implies a relationship of a master and servants and involves the order to obey in the works to be performed and as to its mode and manner of performance. This is not subject matter of this Act of 1986, so also excluded it from the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court, as held by  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Kishore Lal vs. ESI Corporation, AIR 2007 SC 1819.
7.                              In view of the above discussion this Commission arrives at the conclusion that the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by learned District Commission, Motihari, is not sustainable in the eye of law, as such, the same is hereby set aside. Accordingly, appeal is allowed with no cost.  

                                                                                                                                                               Miss Gita Verma

                                                                                                                                                                   (Judicial Member)

                                                                                                                                                                 Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey

                                                                                                                                                                          (Member)

                                                                                                                                                          Mr. Subodh Kumar Srivastava

                                                                                                                                                                     (Judicial Member)