Date of filing :-16/02/2017.

Date of Order:-25/09/2017.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)

B A R G A R H

Consumer Complaint No. 05 of 2017

Geeta Seth C/o Arjun Seth, aged about-32(thirty two)years, R/o-Nigamananda Bihar, Po/Ps/Dist-Bargarh. ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.

V e r s u s

Superintendent of Post Office, Sambalpur, Po/Ps/Dist. Sambalpur. ..... ..... ..... ..... .....Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties.

For the Complainant:- Sri G.Meher, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party :- Himself.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).

Dt.25/09/2017 -: J U D G E M E N T :-

Presented by Sri K.P. Mishra, President:-

Brief facts of the case :-

The case is filed by the Complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 pertaining to the deficiencies in giving service to him by the Opposite Party appertaining to the allegation as mentioned hereunder.

The case of the Complainant is that, she is an agent of the Opposite Party doing Postal Life Insurance business against commission over her deposite of premium of the insured person for the same.

Her case is that on Dt-27.08.2016, the Opposite Party issued a memo vide No-21/PLI/Incentive/2012/2013 wherein 10%(ten percent) of her commission was withheld with an assurance to pay the same later on, as such she continued her job of accumulating the insurance policy and also got the commission for the same in time except the said 10%(ten percent) of the withheld amount till date even after several approach to the Opposite Party for which she suffered a lot mentally and financially, alleging that she works for the Opposite Party for consideration but as the said amount is not yet paid by the Opposite Party, has committed deficiencies in giving service to her for which is liable for action as per the Act, and has filed the case before the Forum claiming an amount of Rs.26,448/-(Rupees twenty six thousand four hundred forty eight)only the alleged amount of said 10%(ten percent) withheld amount with interest and also has claimed Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only as compensation for the mental and financial harassment caused to her and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expenses. Along with the Complaint she has filed some documents to substantiate her case, (i) The xerox copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party (ii) Xerox copy of regd. letter sent to the Opposite Party to the complainant.

Having gone through the complaint and on hearing the Advocate for the Complainant who urged vehemently during the course of his argument to admit the case, the case was admitted and notice was sent to the Opposite Party, and on being noticed the Opposite Party appeared before the Forum through an authorized officer of the same and filed it’s version with a plea of total denial of the case with much emphasis on the point of the maintainability of the case on the ground that the Complainant is not a Consumer along with other evasive statement to the allegation of the Complainant, and to that effect has filed some documents, as Annexture - I to IV.

Having gone through the complaint and the documents filed by the Complainant and the version and it’s supporting documents, the only point of adjudication arises before the Forum as to whether the Complainant is a consumer in view of the Consumer Protection Act-1986, and whether is entitled for any relief as has sought for by her.

In this context of the question of the status of the Complainant, whether is a Consumer as per the Act, having perused the complaint and it’s supporting documents and the version filed by the Opposite Party and it’s supporting documents filed on it’s behalf, and after hearing the counsel for the Complainant and the authorised person for the Opposite Party. We would like to refer the relevant portion of the Act i.e Section 2 (d)(I) & (II) wherein it has been clearly defined the term consumer, thus, (i)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 payments, 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. (ii)Consumer means any person who hires or avail any service 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 service other than the person who hires or avail the service for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such service are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person(but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose). And in view of the definition of Consumer as enunciated by the Act it is very much clear that the Complainant is not a Consumer from any angel rather the Opposite Party is the Consumer for it hires the service of the complainant to promote and sale it’s insurance scheme for consideration by way of commission. Hence in our consensus views the claim of the complainant is not maintainable in the Consumer Protection Act 1986, it does not come within the purview of the Forum as such it is answered against the Complainant.

And so far as the claim of the Complainant is concerned, having gone through the entire record vividly with much care, we found it to be a dispute regarding the monetary transaction between both the parties and such dispute does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, for which the complainant is at liberty to knock the door of the proper Forum as per the Law, hence our views is expressed against the Complainant accordingly it is answered against the Complainant. Hence order follows.

Hence the case of the Complainant is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and is also devoid of any merit against the Opposite Party under the Act as such it is dismissed against the Opposite Party.

Accordingly the complaint against the Opposite Party is dismissed and disposed off.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

              (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

                      P r e s i d e n t.

                                                                               I agree,                                                         I agree,

                                                                    (Ajanta Subhadarsinee)                              (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)

                                                                                 M e m b e r.                                             M e m b e r.