This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 24-03-11 in the presence of Sri D. Srinivas, advocate for complainant and of             Sri G. Erukala Reddy, advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record and after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,77,586/- being PF and gratuity amount, Rs.3750/- being pre insurance amount due, Rs.10,000/- towards PLLI bonus, Rs.20,000/- towards physical and mental agony, RS.20,000/- towards damages and Rs.400/- towards legal expenses.

2.      In brief the averments of the complaint are these:  

        The complainant took voluntary retirement on 08-05-09 from LIC.     After retirement OP1 sanctioned pension and commutation amounts to the complainant.   The complainant discharged some of the debts after receipt of the above amounts. The opposite parties have to pay PF, gratuity, PL encashment, GSLI and those amounts are not attachable.   Inspite of repeated requests the opposite parties did not settle those amounts.  Having vexed with their attitude the complainant filed PLC No.66/09 before the Chairman, Lok Adalat Committee, Tenali.    The said PLC was closed for non appearance of the parties.   The complainant suffered a lot mentally and financially due to the above attitude of the opposite party which amounted to deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The 2^nd opposite party filed memo adopting the version/affidavit filed by the 1^st opposite party and the contents in brief is hereunder:

        The complainant does not come under the purview of the consumer and there is no consumer dispute.   This Forum has no jurisdiction.   Due to prohibitory orders issued by various Courts the opposite party stopped the terminal benefits and adjusted the Corporation dues.   Other allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all invented by the complainant to suit his case.

4.      Exs.A-1 to A-3 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-7 on behalf of opposite parties were marked.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation towards mental agony and damages?
5. To what relief?

6.   Points 1 to 3:-       The complainant retiring from the opposite parties on 18-05-09 is not disputed.    The opposite parties filed attachment orders and they are detailed below:

7.     In Mohhammed Ibrahim Shekh Muneer vs. Pulgaon Cotton Mills Limited, 2007 CTJ 782 (CP) (SCDRC),

        “The learned advocate Shri Shukla argued that the remedy provided in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is the additional remedy provided to the consumers and therefore the consumer complaint with regard to non payment of gratuity is covered by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   We find extremely difficult to digest the submission of learned advocate Shukla which is contrary to the mandate of Apex Court.   In the result we hold that dismissal order passed by the Forum below does not suffer from any illegality.  Hence the order”.

8.     In Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs. Madhukar Vithal Kale (since deceased) through legal representatives the NCDRC held,

        “The judicial precedence of the National Commission have cautioned us not to embark upon for adjudication in the matters which are not consumer dispute.   We, accordingly, hold that since the respondent would not be covered under the definition of ‘consumer; under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the remedy does not lie before the Consumer For a.   The respondent, if aggrieved with the action of the petitioner-authority, can agitate the issue before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance”.    

9.     In this case the complainant sought the retirement benefits like PF and gratuity pre insurance amount and PLLA bonus.   Relying on the above decisions this Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer and his remedy is elsewhere and as such the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.   In view of the afore mentioned discussions these points are answered in favour of the opposite party.

10.   POINT No.4:-    In view of the above findings on points 1 to 3 the complainant is not entitled to any amount towards compensation under any head.  Hence, this point is answered in favour of the opposite party.

11.    POINT No.5:-    In view of the above findings, in the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

        Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 11th day of April, 2011.

Sd/-XXX                                           Sd/-XXX                             Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                                         MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

    DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:        

                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT