CC Filed on 29.09.2011
Disposed on 01.10.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 01st day of October 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA, Member.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 199/2011
Between:
1. Sri. C.S. Chandrappa, Senior Assistant, Aged about 56 years, DCC Bank, Head Office, Kolar. 2. Sri. K.B. Venkatesha, Driver, Aged about 42 years, DCC Bank, Head Office, Kolar. 3. Sri. R. Gurappa, Driver, Aged about 40 years, DCC Bank, Head Office, Kolar. 4. Sri. M.R. Shivakumar, Manager, Aged about 40 years, DCC Bank, Head Office, Kolar. 5. Sri. N. Krishnegowda, Junior Assistant, Aged about 59 years, DCC Bank, Head Office, Kolar. (By Advocate Smt. M.V. Rathnamma & others) | ….Complainants |
V/S 1. The Special Officer, Kolar and Chikkballapura District Central Co-operative Bank, Kolar. 2. The Managing Director, Kolar D.C.C. Bank, Head Office, Kolar. | ….Opposite Parties |
O R D E R
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainants are working at the office of the Opposite Party. Their contention is that from the year 2001 the State Government has sanctioned dearness allowance from time to time, but the Opposite Party has not paid the dearness allowance. Hence this complaint is filed for directing the Opposite Party to pay the dearness allowance from 01.07.2000 to 31.07.2011.
2. The complaint was heard on the question on admission.
3. The question that arises for consideration is:
Point No.1: Whether there is sufficient cause to proceed
with the complaint?
Point No.2: To what order?
4. Our findings to this point is as hereunder
1. Negative
2. As per final order.
R E A S O N S
5. Point No.1 and 2: In our opinion there is no reason to proceed with the complaint for the following reason:
Doubt was entertained about the maintainability of the complaint as the complainants are not the ‘Consumers’. The Learned Counsel for the complainants has produced a copy of the commentary under the Consumer Protection Act, wherein it was observed as follows:
“consumer” under the Act includes not only the person who hires the services for consideration but also the beneficiary, for who benefit such services are hired. Even if it is held that administrative charges are paid by the Central Government and no part of it is paid by the employee, the services of the Provident Fund Commissioner in running the scheme shall be deemed to have been availed of for consideration by the Central Government for the benefit of employees who would be treated as beneficiary within the meaning of that word used in the definition of “consumer”.
The complainant has also produced copy of an order passed in Complaint No. 58/2009 by this Forum.
In our opinion the dispute raised by the complainant is about not giving the dearness allowance which was sanctioned by the State Government. In our opinion, it is a service dispute between the parties and such dispute cannot be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection act. The complainants cannot to be said as consumers, because they are not taking any service from the Opposite Party and their relationship is that of ‘employer’ and ‘employee’. Hence if any benefit to which the complainants are entitled were not given, it is not a consumer dispute and it is a dispute between a ‘employer’ and ‘employee’. Withholding the sanction of dearness allowance cannot be called as service which was required to be given by the Opposite Party. Hence we hold that the complainants are not the ‘Consumers’ and the dispute between them is not a consumer dispute and the complaint is not maintainable. When the complaint is not maintainable no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the complaint. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission.
The commentary relied on is not applicable to the facts of the case, because no service is hired by the complainants. If there was a duty on the part of the Opposite Party to give a service, then such service is to be given to the person who has taken the service and also to its beneficiary. But in this case no such service is required to be given. Hence the ratio decidendi of that commentary is not applicable. In our opinion, the decision of complaint No. 58/2009 is entirely different from the facts of the case. That was a case relating to paying the death benefits due to death of the complainant’s husband. Hence on facts that case is not applicable to the present case. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
It is held that the complaint is not maintainable. Hence the complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 01st day of October 2011.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
