PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 02.05.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short “the State Commission) in Complaint No. 129/2009 – Mr. N.K. Philip Vs. M/s. Elegant Car Accessories Pvt. Ltd. by which, complaint was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant was an employee of OP No. 1/Respondent No.1. OP /Respondent -2 is the proprietor of OP No. 1 and OP No. 3 & 4/Respondent No. 3 & 4 are sons of OP No. 2, who were also running business of chit fund in the name of OP No. 5/Respondent No. 5. It was further alleged that Complainant started working as salesman in OP-1 in February, 1990. He was getting salary of Rs.5000/- per month apart from overtime of four hours per day amounting to Rs.5000/- per month. OP-2 provided free accommodation in the basement to the complainant for his stay without any charges. Claimant only had to incur expenditure of feeding himself. From January, 1991 OP-2 never paid the entire salary to the complainant, rather he used to deposit a major portion of his salary in his own Chit Fund and provide cash receipt. Complainant had no option but to agree, otherwise his job was at stake. The complainant deposited more than 20 lacs in the said Chit Fund till January, 2004. In October 2004, complainant demanded his funds back, OP issued cheque of Rs.20,01,250/- drawn on Karnataka Bank, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. On presentation, the said cheque could not be encashed on account of “account closed”. OP-2 hatched a conspiracy with SHO PS – Lajpat Nagar and got FIR No.842/04 u/s 381/420/467/468/471 IPC registered against complainant. The complainant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. He suffered a lot. The complainant was likely to be discharged in the said criminal case. OPs have cheated to the tune of more than 20 lacs. Cause of action arose in January, 1991 when OP started depositing salary of the complainant in the Chit Fund. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OPs resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was not maintainable as complainant was not a consumer, complainant was an employee who seeks to recover Rs.20,01,250/- with interest @ 24% per annum. As per complaint, the said amount represents the portion of salary and complaint for recovery of salary is not maintainable in this Commission. They denied that complainant was working as salesman or that his salary was Rs.5000/- per month apart from overtime. According to them, complainant worked as part time car cleaner and during the period he had stolen a blank cheque from the office of OP, filled up the amount, date and time and tried to obtain its payment. On intimation from OP’s bank, complainant was got arrested red handed by police and FIR was registered. The complainant was likely to be convicted in the said case. Complicated question of cheating, forgery are involved which cannot be adjudicated in summary procedure under Consumer Protection Act. The complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation. The receipt pertaining to Perfume Chits Pvt. Ltd. were got printed by complainant. The same were fabricated and had nothing to do with Perfume Chits Pvt. Ltd. The receipts are not in the writing of any of the employees of OP. Perfume Chits Pvt. Ltd. never had office at A-62, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi, the same operated from its registered office at 235, Defence Colony Flyover Market, Jungpura side. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint as barred by limitation and not maintainable. 3. Heard appellant in person and perused record. 4. Appellant submitted that inspite of proof of depositing amount with OP No. 5 which was owned by OP No. 2 and not returning aforesaid amount, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint as not maintainable and barred by limitation, though, sufficient explanation for condonation of delay was given; hence, appeal be admitted.. 5. It is admitted case of the complainant that major portion of his salary was kept in deposit by OPs in OP No. 5 - M/s. Perfume Chits Pvt. Ltd. right from 1990 and he demanded this money in 2004 and cheque given to him was also dishonoured in the year 2004, but complaint was filed in the year 2005. Complainant could not make out any case for condonation of inordinate delay in filing complaint. Amount deposited by each receipt could have been claimed only within two years, whereas complainant has claimed whole of the amount in the year 2001 and complaint has been filed after 5 years after dishonouring cheque. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in treating complaint as barred by limitation. 6. Learned State Commission has rightly observed that complaint was not maintainable, as complainant made out case for recovery of salary which cannot be entertained by Consumer Fora. OP has denied payment of salary to the complainant and has also disputed aforesaid chit receipts and complainant is also facing criminal trial for forgery, cheating, theft, etc. of disputed cheque and in such circumstances, all these questions cannot be decided in Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act. 7. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine at admission stage. 8. Consequently, appeal filed by appellant is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. |
