DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 06/02/2023
CC/36/2023
Raheema K A
Ariyani House, Kurisam Kulam
Pirayiri Post
Palakkad – 678 004 - Complainant
(Party in person)
Vs
1. The Manager
Mujeeb Rahman
Sunford English Medium School
Panniyampadam, Kollukkadu
Mundur Post, Palakkad – 678 592
2. The Principal
Arifa Iqbal, Sunford English Medium School
Panniyampadam, Kollukkadu
Mundur Post, Palakkad – 678 592
3. Safiya Teacher
Sunford English Medium School
Panniyampadam, Kollukkadu - Opposite parties
Mundur Post, Palakkad – 678 592
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
1. Pleadings of the Complainant in brief.
Complainant was introduced to the 2nd opposite party, The Principal, Sunford English Medium School by 3rd opposite party Ms. Safiya. The 2nd opposite party contacted the complainant through phone and promised a job in their school. As per her advice, the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party and deposited 2 lakh rupees as caution deposit for getting the job. They offered Rs. 10,000/- as monthly salary and promised to refund the caution deposit and dividend when she discontinues her job.
She worked there for 3 months and they paid 2 month’s salary. She intimated the opposite parties her unwillingness to continue the job. But they did not refund Rs. 2 lakhs even after 9 months. The opposite parties issued a cheque dated 10/01/2023 for 2 lakh rupees and the cheque was returned unpaid.
So the complainant approached the Commission for getting the refund of 2 lakh rupees, being the caution deposit, Rs. 10,000/- being her unpaid salary for one month, and cost of the litigation and other expenses.
2. This matter came up for admission and it was heard and taken for orders based on the preliminary issue of question of maintainability.
3. In order to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant should be a ‘Consumer’ and there should be a consumer-service provider relationship between the complainant and opposite parties.
4. Here the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2 lakh in opposite party’s school for getting an employment there. She joined there and worked for 3 months. The opposite parties paid only 2 month salary. She approached the Commission for getting the balance salary and caution deposit.
5. The complainant was working in opposite parties school as a teacher. Her grievance is regarding non-payment of salary of one month for which he worked in the school and non-refund of caution deposit given at the time of joining the school.
6. Here the relationship between the complainant and opposite parties is that of employer and employee. The grivence regarding non-payment of salary and other amount by the employee is not a consumer dispute; but it is a service dispute. The opposite parties are the employers of the complainant and payment of salary and other amounts connected with job does not tantamount to rendering of service to an employee.
So the present complaint is not a consumer dispute and it does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Resultantly the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and it is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of February 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
