ORDER<br /> <br /> SRI D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops are, that on the 1st OP issuing advertisement for appointing a Pharmacist, he applied for the said post and was appointed on 1/3/2004. That he at that time had given all his original educational documents for verification. That the Manager of the 1st OP told him that he will transfer all his original documents to OP-2 and thereafter they will be returned to him. That he worked with OP-1 upto 4-5-2005, he was honoured as Star Salesman on 5-2-2005 for his good work and he was admired by all. Thereafter he received several offers from others to join their firms and when he informed the 1st OP regarding the offers, but he failed to return his original documents. Then he resigned to this job on 4-6-2005 and requested for return of documents. But the 1st OP has not only failed to pay salary amounting to Rs.6,000/-, but also to return his original documents. On account of not returning the documents Ops are liable to pay Rs.2.5 Lakhs. For want of original documents he could not join any other organization. That the Ops have threatened to file false complaint against him. In spite of issuance of legal notice, Ops have not returned the original documents and has prayed for a direction to Ops to pay compensation of Rs.19 Lakhs towards loss, humiliation and mental agony and to award such other reliefs.<br /> <br /> Ops have appeared and filed their common version contending that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. That the complaint is barred by limitation and on that ground also it is not maintainable. They have admitted to had appointed the complainant as Pharmacist on 1-3-2004 and receipt of original documents for verification. It is stated that the service of the complainant was terminated because of mis-appropriation of funds belonging to them. That the original documents could not be returned as they have filed a criminal complaint against the complainant and his whereabouts was also not known. Therefore the Ops justifying their action in retaining the original documents because of criminal action they have initiated, and denying other allegations have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> The complainant and the Manager of the Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complainant has produced a copy of appointment letter, identity card, resignation letter, copy of legal notice and copies of two letters of a labour department besides few copies of letters addressed to the Labour Commissioner. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and the Ops and perused the records.<br /> On consideration of the above materials following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that he is a consumer, and the complaint is maintainable?<br /> 2. Whether he further proves that the Ops have caused deficiency in service in not returning his original documents?<br /> 3. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Answer on point No: 1 & 2 in the negative. <br /> Answer on Point No: 3 to see the final order<br /> Reasons:<br /> <br /> Answer on Point NO:1 & 2: Before we proceed to the merits of the case we shall examine whether the complaint is barred by limitation as contended by the Ops. The complainant in the complaint and also in the affidavit evidence has stated that he resigned to his job with OP-1 on 4-6-2005. Thereafter it appears from the documents he has filed he approached the Labour Department probably for his remedy and it appears that he did not get the remedy, thereafter he has come up with this complaint on 6-6-2009. The complainant therefore has not filed this complaint within 2 years as provided under Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is therefore is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.<br /> <br /> As found from the admissions of the complainant, he joined service with OP-1 as a Pharmacist on monthly remuneration. Therefore the relationship between the complainant and the Ops was one of an employee and a employer. Coming to the definition of the word ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant do not fall within the definition of the word ‘Consumer’, therefore he can not be called as a Consumer, because the complainant after paying any amount or payment as consideration has not brought any goods or availed service of Ops to fall within the definition of word ‘Consumer’. As this kind of transaction and relationship between the complainant and the Ops do not follow within the ambit of the word Consumer, the complainant can not be construed as a Consumer as such the complaint filed by the complainant before this Forum is not maintainable and therefore is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> The Ops have contended to have withheld the original documents because of the alleged misappropriation of funds belonging to them by the complainant and because of pendency of a Criminal case against the complainant. Therefore viewing from this angle the Ops can not be said to have caused deficiency in service in not returning the documents. Therefore considering the grievance of the complainant from any angle it can safely be held that the complainant has not proved his case and the complaint do not merit consideration and is liable to be dismissed. As the result, we answer Point No1 and 2 in the negative and pass the following.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed.<br />