MISC.CASE NO.128 OF 2019

 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

FA No. 43 of 2019 is directed against the order dated 29.12.2018 passed by the learned District Forum, Kalahandi in CC No. 46 of 2018.

Misc. Case No. 128 of 2019 is an application for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the appeal.

Appellant was OP No.2 whereas respondent No.1 was the complainant and respondent No.2 was OP No.1 before the learned District Forum.

On request and consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

Heard.

Complainant is a retired Government servant. By way of filing the complaint the complainant made prayer to direct the OPs representing Office of the Tahasildar, Kalahandi to disburse arrear salary. The operative part of the impugned order reads as follows:-

“In view of the aforesaid findings, the Opp.Parties are directed to take immediate steps to obtain the allotment within 15 days of receipt of the order. The Op No.2 who had deliberately harassed the complainant to get his arrear in time and availed the arrear salary himself is found deficiency in service and he is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- towards mental agony, pecuniary loss of the complainant along with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-. If the Ops failed to comply the order for taking step to obtain the allotment as above, the Ops shall be jointly liable for interest on the arrear dues @9% from the date 29.03.2018. The above order is to be complied by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which proceeding U/s 27 of the C.P.Act shall be initiated.”

In reply to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding maintainability of the complaint, which according to him is not a consumer dispute but a service dispute, learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant fairly concedes that in view of nature of the grievance raised by the complainant, the complainant does not satisfy the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act and the dispute is a service dispute.

Having perused the impugned order, it is apparent that grievance of respondent No.1/complainant before the learned District Forum regarding non-disbursement of salary belongs to the arena of service dispute. The status of the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ vis-a-vis the appellant and respondent No.2. Therefore, the learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction and is a nullity which can be challenged at any time in any proceeding including collateral proceeding.

In the above circumstances, delay, if any, in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside at the stage of admission.

As prayed for by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, it is observed that respondent No.1/complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance.