COMPLAINT FILED ON: 26.08.2009
DISPOSED ON: 22.12.2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
DATED THIS THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.2056/2009
Complainant | Sushma. K.H., D/o Hanumantharayappa, R/at No.1, 24th Main, Muneshwara ‘T’ Block, Girinagar, Bangalore – 560 085. Advocate: Sri. B.R.Dwarakanath V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | M/s Indiabulls Securities Ltd., # 81/B, II Floor, “Lakshmi Mansion”, III Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011. Advocate: Sri. S. Balan |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P.) to transfer the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05 MD-2354 into the name of the complainant and to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as damages with litigation costs on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2. The case of the complainant is to be stated in brief is that:
The complainant has working with OP as Associate Vice President. The complainant was provided the car branded Santro-X, bearing registration No.KA-05 MD-2354. The said car was provided to the complainant as official vehicle. The vehicle was purchased by OP in its name and under loan scheme from ICICI Bank, Bangalore. The purchase of the car in the name of the company and allotting it to the employee was done in order to take the tax benefit. The complainant was provided with the car under the condition that the installment on the said vehicle should be deducted from the salary or incentive earned by the complainant. The understanding is that once the loan on the car is fully deducted from the salary or the incentive of the employee, the vehicle shall be transferred into the name of the employee. The complainant was working with OP and the car installment was deducted from the salary or the incentive of the complainant and thus the complainant has completely reimbursed the installment due on the car to the OP. The installment on the car loan was deducted unevenly from the salary or the incentive of the complainant and remitted in even monthly installment to the bank. The complainant resigned from the service with OP on 30.09.2008. In the resignation letter itself the complainant has stated that she has cleared the car loan. OP in its employee clearance form not mentioned any pending dues and thus the car loan is cleared from the OP side also. Ever since the complainant resigned from the services of the OP, she is demanding the transfer of vehicle into her name and the OP dodged the transfer of the vehicle on one pretext or the other. The complainant received a notice dated 26.03.2009 from the OP asking for sum of Rs.56,557/-. The said notice was suitably replied on 04.04.2009, in the reply OP was requested for detailed statement of deductions from the incentive and salary of the complainant to be furnished, which they have failed and neglected to do so till date. The complainant has paid the entire loan amount due on the car and is entitled for the transfer of the vehicle into her name. OP is causing mental stress and agony and unnecessarily harasses the complainant. The complainant claims damages towards the stress and mental agony to extent of Rs.25,000/-. Thus the complaint seeking necessary reliefs stated above.
3. On appearance, OP filed version contending that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious, same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has not availed any services in lieu of consideration; hence the complaint is to be dismissed. The complainant admittedly was an employee of the OP i.e., there was employer and employee relationship between the parties. The dispute is not ‘Consumer dispute’ same does not come within the preview of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has concealed true facts. This Forum to decide the question of law as preliminary issue on the maintainability of the complaint. Otherwise it is submitted to dismiss the complaint for being devoid of merits and to give direction to the complainant to clear for outstanding liabilities towards the OP amounting to Rs.56,557/- with interest at 18% p.a. with a further direction to handover the vehicle to the OP.
4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence. The Vice President of OP filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version and produced documents.
5. Both the parties filed written arguments. Arguments on both sides heard. Point for consideration is: “Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and complaint is maintainable”?
6. We record our findings on the above point ‘Negative’.
R E A S O N S
7. At the out set it is not at dispute that the complainant was working with OP as Associated Vice President, Bangalore and she has resigned from the service with effect from 30.09.2008. The vehicle car Santro-X bearing registration No.KA-05 MD-2354 was provided to the complainant by OP as official vehicle. The said vehicle was purchased by OP in its name by availing loan from ICICI Bank. It is stated by the complainant that purchase car in the name of OP and allotted it to employee was done in order to take the tax benefit. The case of the complainant is the car was provided under the condition that the installment on the said vehicle should be deducted from salary or incentive earned by the complainant. Once the loan on the car is cleared, the vehicle shall be transferred into the name of the complainant. It is stated that the entire loan has been cleared by deducting the installments from the salary or incentive earned by the complainant. OP has failed in transferring the vehicle into the name of the complainant. Thus the complainant claims that she is entitled for transfer of the vehicle in her name.
8. The photo copies of the RC book, bank’s statement, the resignation letter, clearance form, advocate notice and reply notice are produced by the complainant. The main defence of the OP is the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined U/s. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the dispute between the parties is not a ‘consumer dispute’, the complaint is not maintainable.
9. Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines ‘consumer as’ under:
“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 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;”
10. It is not the case of the complainant she has purchased any goods for consideration from the OP or she has availed any service in lieu of consideration so as to hold that she is ‘Consumer’ as defined U/s. 2(1)(d) of the Act. The complainant admittedly was an employee of the OP and there was employer and employee relationship between the OP and the complainant. Therefore the dispute with regard to transfer of the vehicle into the name of the complainant is not a ‘consumer dispute’ to be adjudicated by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under the Act. Therefore we are of the view that the complaint is not maintainable, the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is at liberty to approach the proper Forum if so advised to get the necessary reliefs. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable. Considering the nature of dispute no order as to costs.
Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 22nd day of December 2010.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Snm:
