IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM, KOLLAM

Dated this the  10 ^th Day of  December 2018

  Present: -  Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

        Sri. M.Praveen Kumar,Bsc, LL.B ,Member

                   Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, BSc,LL.B, Member

                                                                    CC No.246/17

Sajitha.B.Nair                                             :                  Complainant

W/o Ajikumar

Kottavathukkal

Tharayil,Pada North

Karunagappally-690518

[By  Adv.N.Rajan Pillai]

V/s

The Managing Director&        The Principal       :                  Opposite party

Sali George

Good Shephered School

Kollaka,Chavara

Kollam.

[By Adv.Shajan Cheriyan John]

ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M,President

            This is a case based in a consumer complaint filed  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

          The complainant was a teacher at the Good Shephered School owned by the 1^st opposite party.  She joined duty  on 18.05.16.  Thereafter the management had deducted Rs.10000/- from her salary without her permission by claiming that it is  deposit and also stated that the amount would be returned after 1 year.  However when she demanded the amount after 1 year the 1^st opposite party refused to return the amount and also threatened  her.  The complainant is entitled to get Rs.10000/-  along with  interest  from  the  date  of

2

deposit till realisation and also compensation to the tune of Rs.50000/- for the mental agony caused by the opposite party by refusing  to return the amount.  Hence the complaint.

          In response to the notice the opposite party entered appearance on 23.01.18.  The case has been posted  to 02.03.18  with a direction to file version within time.  In spite of several posting date the opposite party has not filed version.  On 16.07.18 the complainant  filed proof affidavit and ready to face cross examination.  But the opposite party and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party  called absent.  Hence  opposite party set exparte and exparte evidence was recorded.  Complainant filed affidavit and got marked Ext.P1 which is a C.D. On 19.09.18 the complainant filed a notes of argument.    Opposite party’s counsel present and pointed out that he had already filed version  and IA to receive the version and also to set aside the exparte order dated 16.07.18 as IA 289/18 and 290/18.  The learned counsel for the complainant filed objection strongly resisting the above 2 IA’s.  On 15.10.18 both the IA’s stand dismissed as there is no provision  in the Consumer Protection Act to set aside exparte order and to receive belated version.  Section 151 CPC and order IX Rule 13 are not made applicable to the cases coming under the Consumer Protection Act.  In the circumstance exparte order not set aside and belated version not accepted.

 Heard the counsel for the complainant and peruse the records.

          Before entering into the merit of the case it is to be considered  whether the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          The specific case of the complainant is that she was got appointed at the 1^st opposite party school on 18.05.16 and while disbursing monthly salary Rs.10000/- was deducted towards deposit and the same was without her permission and was promised to return the same after 1 year.  But the opposite party  has failed  to  return  the  same  as  promised  even  after  1 year  and  the

3

opposite party denied the request and also threatened her.  Apart from the oral averments in the proof affidavit there is absolutely no supporting evidence either oral or documentary to prove the above case of the complainant.  Even if the above version of the complainant is believed the  complainant is a teacher and the opposite party is the  Principal and Managing Director of the Good Shephered School.  On going through the entire pleadings averments in the proof affidavit filed by the complainant it cannot be hold  that the complainant  is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  As per the  above  provision   a consumer is a person  who buys any goods for consideration or a person who avails any service for a consideration.  Here in this case the opposite party being the Principal and Managing Director of the school has not sold any goods nor let any service to the complainant for  any consideration.  The complainant  has also  not purchased any goods or availed any service for consideration from the opposite party.  Therefore the complainant would not come within the definition of the term consumer.

          Even if it is believed that the complainant obtained appointment as a teacher at the opposite party school and the opposite party there is absolutely no materials to hold that the opposite party has deducted amount from her salary except the CD.  The content  of the CD is not available to  the forum.  There is absolutely no materials before  the  forum to show that the opposite party had deducted any amount from her salary.  She has not specifically pleaded what was her salary whether Rs.10000/- was deducted from her salary in lump or instalment.  However there is no pleadings or evidence to prove those  aspect.  Even if it is proved that the management of the school has deducted some amount from her salary as claimed in the complaint by promising that it will be returned  after 1 year and the same has not returned after one year it  will amount to a breach of contract and the complainant  has to approach a civil court or she has to file a complaint before the Taluk Legal  Service  Committee

4

alleging her grievance in detail.  In order to entertain a complaint by the CDRF the complainant must be a consumer and opposite party must be a person or agency who sold any goods or provided any service for consideration. As there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite party, this forum lacks jurisdiction and therefore the complainant is only to be dismissed  on that count. 

In the result the complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable.  It is made clear that the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or  the Taluk Legal Service Committee as pointed out above.

Dictated to the  Confidential Assistant Smt.Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the 10^th  day of  December  2018.

 E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

                                                                          M.Praveen Kumar:-Sd/-

                                                                         S.Sandhya Rani:-Sd/-

                                                                         Forwarded/by Order

                                                                         SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1                  :         CD

Witness examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for the opposite party:Nil

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

                                                                                   M.Praveen Kumar:Sd/-

                                                                                    S.Sandhya Rani:-Sd/-

                                                                                    Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                   SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT