BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 11/2002 Filed on 07.01.2002

Dated : 15.06.2009

Complainant:

M. Shabgeen, Simi Manzil, NLRA-353, Ulloor, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 11.

Opposite parties:

1. S. Sreenivasan I.A.S, Director of Employment & Training, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.

    

2. S. Sudarsanan, Additional Director of Training, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.

    

(By adv. S.R. Jayakumar, Addl. Govt. Pleader)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 15.11.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 02.05.2009, the Forum on 15.06.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant is working in Trivandrum Rubber Works and while so he applied for a category change. Complainant during the time of India-Pakistan War in 1963 was taken for the course of Trade Certificate in Trivandrum Engineering College and he served in the army and thereafter he was given a job in Rubber Works, Trivandrum. When the Rubber Works department sent verification to the opposite party with regard to the ITI Certificate mentioned in the complaint, the opposite party informed that for the same, the T.C or course certificate has to be produced. But the complainant submits that he has never been issued with such a course certificate or T.C and hence he could not produce the same as demanded. Hence the opposite party insulted the complainant by questioning the genuineness of the certificate. The complainant has pleaded that, the act of the opposite party in not maintaining records pertaining to the said course has caused loss to him. Hence this complaint has been necessitated.

In this case the 2^nd opposite party filed version for and on behalf of 1^st opposite party. In the version they denied the entire allegations levelled against them by the complainant. They stated that they have no knowledge about the job and category change of the complainant. I.T.I, Trivandrum has not received any original certificate of the complainant. It could not be found from the official records that the complainant had completed the I.T.I course. The opposite parties stated that the complainant has not produced any document regarding his completion of the course. If he had completed the course definitely course certificate and Transfer Certificate should have been given. They denied the allegations of the complainant that he was ill treated by the officials.

This case was disposed on 04.06.2002 and thereafter opposite parties filed appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission and the appellate commission remanded the case for fresh disposal.

In this case complainant was examined as PW1 and he has produced 4 documents. The opposite parties cross examined the complainant.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

3. Reliefs and costs.

Point (i):- The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties did not keep the details of the I.T.I certificate course which he had obtained about 39 years ago. The complainant stated that during the time of India-Pakistan war in 1963 he was taken for the course Trade Certificate in Thiruvananthapuram Engineering College and he was served in the army. But in the complaint he did not state whether he had paid any fee for the above said course. As per Sec. 2 (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, consumer means any person who “[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 availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];”.

In this case complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he has hired the service of the opposite party for consideration. In order to be a consumer for the purpose of services, it is necessary that the services must have been hired or availed of for consideration. The services rendered of free of charges or under a contract of personal service are outside the purview of the Act. In the light of the above said discussion we find that the complainant is not a consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

In the above circumstances, there is no need for considering the other points.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of June 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 11/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Shabjeen

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of Trade Certificate of the complainant dated

01.08.1963.

P2 - Copy of Trade Certificate of Vrindakaran. K dated

01.08.1963.

P3 - Copy of photo marked.

P4 - Copy of certificate of service with date of enrolment 4^th

August 1963.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT