Kerala

Idukki

CC/71/2020

Jancy shaji - Complainant(s)

Versus

Postal department - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2021

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 8.6.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2021

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.71/2020

Between

Complainant : Jancy Shaji,

Madiyakkankal House,

Thankamany P.O.,

Idukki.

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Inspector of Postal Department,

Postal Sub Divisional Office,

Kattappana P.O.,

Idukki.

2. Superintendent Office,

Postal Division, Thodupuzha,

Idukki.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Allegations of the complainant are as under :

 

1. As per directions from the office of Inspector of Posts, Kattappana, she was appointed as Postmaster in Marygiri Post Office and she worked as such from 20.10.2017 to 30.9.2019. After that, her service was terminated without any reason. Later, as per intimation from the office of the Postal Sub Divisional Officer, Kattappana, she was directed to work in Marygiri Post Office from 1.12.2019 to 14.12.2019. Eventhough, she worked with responsibility during the above period, her salary amounting to Rs.5,300/- was not paid. Eventhough she filed complaint directly in the office of Postal Office, (cont….2)

- 2 -

Kattappana, no reply was given. Hence she filed complaint in the office of Superintendent of Posts, Thodupuzha. But no action was taken thereon. Hence, she approached this Commission praying for following reliefs.

1) Her salary for 14 days amounting to Rs.5,300/- may be ordered to be given.

2) Rs.2000/- may be allowed for her mental agony and towards expense of the complaint.

 

She had filed copy of complaint submitted before Superintendent of Posts, Thodupuzha through SDI, Kattappana and its postal receipts.

 

Opposite parties filed written version and 2 additional written versions. Main contentions of opposite parties are as follows :

 

1. It is the specific contention of opposite parties that complainant will not come under the purview of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act. Complainant was not a regular employee and she has engaged as substitute outsider of the vacant post of Branch Post Master, Marygiri branch office with employer-employee relationship.

 

2. Complainant had been paid eligible wages for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) for all the days which she had been engaged as outsider. An additional payment towards combined duty allowance Rs.6480/- (Six Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty) was also paid from 1.4.2019 to 30.9.2019 for conveying mail bag from Marygiri Branch Office to Thankamany Sub Office. Combined duty allowance is applicable only for GDS as prescribed vide Memo No.17-31/2016-GDS dated 25.6.2018 of Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, Delhi. As the complainant is an outsider substitute to the vacant post of Branch Post Master, she is not eligible for combined duty allowance. As such, the inadvertently paid amount disbursed as combined duty allowance for the period from 1.4.2019 to 30.9.2019 was recovered later from her daily wages for the period from 1.12.2019 to 14.12.2019. Combined duty allowance is payable only in certain specific circumstances which are not applicable in this case. Eligible wages of the complainant have not been denied. Evenafter adjusting Rs.5,435/- from the wages for above 14 days, an amount of Rs.1,045/- is yet to be recovered and they prayed for recovering this amount from complainant.

 

3. In the 1^st additional written version, opposite parties have shown the calculation of wages and combined duty allowance paid to complainant from March, 2019 to September, 2019 and also calculation of actual amount to be paid as wages. From the calculation statement submitted, it is evident that above amount Rs.6,480/- was (cont….3)

 

- 3 -

inadvertently paid as combined duty allowance to complainant for the period from 1.4.2019 to 30.9.2019, which was recovered from the daily wages from 1.12.2019 to 14.12.2019. They have also produced copies of the following:

(1) Order of Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi dated 19.5.2010, (Appeal No.FA-10/156 in Ved Prakash Juneja Vs. Director, Central Government Health Scheme, New Delhi.)

(2) Order dated 11.3.2011 of Hon’ble State Commission, Rajasthan (Appeal No.1637/2006 in Elementary Education, Bikaner and Ors Vs. Ram Dayal)

(3) Memorandum No.17-31/2016-GDS dated 25.6.2018 of Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, Delhi.

(4) Guidelines No.17-115/2001-GDS dated 21.10.2002 of Ministry of Communications and IT, Department of Posts, Delhi.

(5) Statement about payment on account of substitute wages and other payment of combined duty allowance from 1.12.2019 to 14.12.2019 in respect of complainant.

(6) Statement of amount paid to complainant and other such employees from March, 2019 to September, 2019 (7 Nos.).

 

4. When the case was called on 18.11.2021, complainant was absent. No application was filed. There was no representation also. Opposite parties 1 and 2 represented. No oral evidence adduced by complainant. Since complainant was absent on the date fixed, complaint is decided on merits. Matter was heard.

 

5. We have examined the contentions of both sides and copy of documents and Orders produced. On a perusal of the above, points arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as defined in Consumer Protection Act ?

2. Whether contention of opposite parties that there is only employer-employee relationship is correct ?

3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

4. Reliefs and Costs.

 

6. Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together

 

It is the specific contention of opposite parties that complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Act. In support of their contention, they have produced the above mentioned Orders of Hon’ble State Commissions. In the above Orders, it is specifically found by the Hon’ble State Commissions that complaint regarding service matters are not maintainable before the Commission. In the case on hand, issue involved is with regard to non-payment of salary for the work done by the complainant. There is no dispute that there was no employer-employee relationship. As such, complaint (cont….4)

- 4 -

claiming monetary benefits from the employer would not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Hence we find that complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. Hence Point Nos.1 and 2 are decided against the complainant.

 

7. Point No.3:

 

In this case, service was actually given by the complainant to the opposite parties for remuneration. As such, complainant cannot allege deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. In the light of decision of Point Nos.1 and 2 above, this point does not deserve consideration. Hence this point is also found against complainant.

 

8. Point No.4 :

 

In the light of above findings, complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

 

9. This Order would not preclude the complainant for seeking any legal remedy provided under other Laws. In the result, complaint is dismissed.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 15^th day of December, 2021

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX : Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT