Orders on Admission
   

The complainant has filed the present complaint U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying for issue of direction to OPs to pay a sum of Rs.5,91,126  towards salary, Rs.1,24,687/- towards interest 18% per annum and Rs.5,000  towards mental agony and Rs.4,500  towards cost of the proceedings in all Rs.8,11,313  

The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that;
         The wife of complainant by name Laxmidevi was serving as a Teacher in Government School.  The said Laxmibai, while in service, expired.  After the death of the said Laxmibai, the complainant being the husband of the legal heir of the said Laxmibai, filed an application before the OP No.2 praying for issue of appointment order on compassionatory basis in his favour on account of the death of his wife, who died in service.  The OPs have rejected the application on the ground that the complainant has re-married after the death of the said Laxmidevi.  The complainant has filed an application Case No.190 2018 (Service) before the Karnataka State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Commission, Bangalore stating that though he is eligible for the appointment, the OPs have not considered him on the compassionatory basis.  The Karnataka State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Commission, Bangalore has passed an order in case No.190/2018 (Service) on 10.7.2017 directing the OPs to issue an order of appointment on compassionatory ground to complainant.  Though the said order has been passed, the OPs have not given effect to it.  Therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 27.9.2019 U/Sec.80 of Civil Procedure Code to the Chief Secretaries.  But the OPs have not yet implemented the order passed by the Karnataka State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Commission, Bangalore.  Therefore, the complainant has sustained loss of Rs.5,91,126 towards salary and also Rs.1,24,687 towards interest @ 18% on the said amount,  Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.4,500/- towards cost of the present proceedings as against the OPs and as such he filed the present complaint before this Forum claiming for issue of direction to OPs to pay the same.
   
One Sri Narasimha, Sheristedar (Retired) is representing the complainant in the capacity of GPA Holder.  

We have heard the said Sri Narasimha, the Retired Sheristedar the GPA Holder of complainant.

We have perused the records.  The following points that have been arisen for our consideration;  
Whether the complainant is a Consumer within the meaning and definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986

Whether the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable and thereby fit for admission

What order

Our answer to the above said points are as under;
In the Negative.    

In the Negative.         

As per final order below;  

REASONS
Point No.1 and 2
         The said GPA holder of complainant has argued that, the Karnataka State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Commission, Bangalore has issued a direction to the OPs to issue appointment order on compassionatory ground to the complainant as per order dated 10.07.2017 passed in case No.190/2016 (Service).  Thereafter, the complainant has issued legtal notice U/Sec.80 of Civil Procedure Code, but the OPs have not yet issued the appointment order.  Due to non-compliance of order of the Karnataka State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Commission, Bangalore, the complainant has sustained loss in getting the salary to the extent of Rs.5,91,126/- and also the complainant is entitled to the interest @  18% on the said amount.  The GPA holder has relied upon a decision reported in 2010 (2) AIR Kar R 230 (Smt. Susheelamma V/s. Accountant General A & E, Pension Division, Karnataka and another) to show that, the complainant is entitled to the interest @ 18% per annum.  GPA Holder has also relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Superme Court of India reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4651 to show that, the complainant is entitled for job on compassionatory ground.  By urging this ground, the GPA Holder submitted that, this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the matter and as such the complaint may be admitted.  

We are decline to accept the submission made by the GPA Holder of complainant.  The Sec.21d of Consumer Protection Act 1986 reads thus;
(d)    consumer" means any person who

    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

    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;
Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;
On perusal of the entire pleadings, nowhere it is contended that, the complainant is a Consumer and he has purchased the goods for consideration or availed the services from the OPs by paying consideration.  In order to get the redressal of his grievance before this Forum, the complainant must be a Consumer as defined U/Sec.2 1d)of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  On perusal of the entire pleadings, nowhere it is pleaded that, the complainant is a Consumer and the OPs are the Service Provider to the complainant.  Unless the case of the complainant comes within the purview of the relationship of ‘Consumer’ and ‘Service Provider’, the complaint cannot be entertained and tried by this Forum.   Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is not maintainable before this Forum and thereby it is not a fit case to admit before this Forum.

We have gone through the decisions submitted by the said GPA holder of complainant.   On perusal of the said two decisions, it reveals that, they are not based upon the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   They are based upon writ matters.   The facts and circumstances narrated in the said cases and the facts and circumstances narrated in the present complaint are totally different.  Therefore, having great respect on the said two decisions submitted by the GPA Holder, we respectfully submit that, the said decisions are not coming to the aid of complainant in the present set of circumstances of the case and that too before this Forum.

This Forum is not having jurisdiction of execution of orders passed by the Karnataka State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Commission, Bangalore.

On taking into consideration of all the above aspects, we are of the view that, the complaint filed by the complainant as against OP No.1 and 2 USec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is not maintainable before this Forum and as such the same is not fit for admission.  Hence, we answer the Point No.1 and 2 in the negative.  

Point No.3   
        For the reasons stated above, we proceed to pass the following;  

ORDER
          The complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as against the OP No.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed as not maintainable and as such not fit for admission.   

          Under the circumstances of the case, we pass no order in respect of costs.

        Furnish the copy of the order to the complainant on free of cost either personally or through post.

 
Shri. Nagashetty Gandage,
Member    Shri Nelhal Sharanappa, President    

Annexure
List of witnesses examined by the complainant
NIL

Documents produced by the complainant
NIL

List of witnesses examined by the OP No.1 to 3:
NIL

Documents produced by the OP No.1 to 3 :
     NIL

 
Shri. Nagashetty Gandage,
Member    Shri Nelhal Sharanappa, President    

SBR

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, AT KALABURAGI

                       C.C. No.214/2019
                          Date of filing 11.12.2019
                      Date of disposal  08.01.2020

P R E S E N T    
        (1) Shri. Nelhal Sharanappa
                B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl),
                    President (Addl. Charge).     

                  (2) Shri. Nagashetty Gandage,
                M.Com.LL.B.,(Spl)
                    Member.    

COMPLAINANTS:        Laxmappa,  
                 R/o Dondambali,
                Tq. Deodurga, Dist. Raichur
                Through its GPA Holder
                Narasimha, Ex-Sheristedar,
                Post: Hatti-584115, Tq. Lingasugur,
                Dist. Raichur.
                
                (By Sri Krishna A.P., Adv)

VERSUS

OPPOSITE PARTY/IES:1)The Regional Commissioner,
        Kalaburagi.

    2)    The Additional Commissioner,
        Education Department,      
        Kalaburagi.