BAJRANG LAL DHABHAI vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

SHRI Bajaranglal Dhabhai has filed this complaint under Section 12 read with Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) against (i) The State of Rajasthan through Secretary Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (ii) Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner and (iii) District Education Officer (students), Jhunjhunu before the State Commission on 4-2-1991 for the reliefs mentioned in para 10 of the complaint. Material facts for the disposal of the complaint are these :

THE complainant had served as a second grade teacher in Sanathan Dharam Senior Higher Secondary School Mandava. He was in service from 18-11-1957. After four years, in 1962 he was promoted as First Grade Teacher. THE Headmaster without any reason and without making any enquiry relieved him in 1974. THE complainant preferred appeal and ultimately the appeal was decided on 27-11-1984 by which the complainant was again taken back in service'' vide order Annex. A passed by the Director, Primary and Secondary School Education, Rajasthan Bikaner. In order to harass the complainant, the matter was taken to the Education Minister and ultimately on 17-9-1986 he was taken in service. THE complainant contacted the officers of the Education Department time and again and ultimately on 18-3-1988 Director, Education Department, Bikaner passed the order for payment of Rs. 1,45,655/- to the complainant. This order was given to the Treasury Officer, Jhunjhunu for payment to the District Education Officer vide Annex. B. THE District Education Officer prepared the bill and sent it to the Treasury Officer. THE bill was going to be passed by the Treasury Officer but the Education Department, Govt, of Rajasthan, Jaipur by telegram dt. 28-3- 1988 stopped the payment without any reason. THE cause is "YAH KEWALEK RAJNAITIK KARAN THA". THE complainant made enquiries from the District Education Officer Jhunjhunu who by his letter dt. 3-5-1988 informed the complainant that the payment has been withheld on receipt of a telegram. THE complainant pursued the matter further. THE Special Secretary to the Govt, of Rajasthan, Education Department ordered the Director, Education Department, Bikaner on 24-5-1990 for making payment to the complainant. By order dt. 25-6-1990 a sum of Rs. 1,44,879/- was paid to the complainant on 20-6-1990 which according to the complainant was short/less by- Rs. 706/- of the previous order. THE complainant contacted the of ficers of the Education Department and asked for interest, compensation on account of mental tension "and other expenses but no heed was paid. A letter was written to the Director, Education Department, Bikaner but no reply was received. He, therefore, filed the complaint for the grant of the following reliefs: Vr % izkFkhZ dks fuEu izdkj ls gqbZ gkfu dk eqvkotk fnykus dh d''ik djs A v izkFkhZ dks tks 1,45,655 Hkqxrku djus dk vkns"k fnukad 18-3-88 dks gqvk Fkk ,oa ftldk Hkqxrku gj gkyr esa 31-3-88 rd gksuk Fkk ysfdu izkFkhZ dks rax djus dh otg ls ,oa jktuSfrd }s"krk ds dkj.k ;g Hkqxrku jksd fn;k ,oa vUr esa 28-6-90 dks feyk mldk C;kt fuEu izdkj gS %& 1,45,655 C;kt 24% nj ld 2 o"kZ 3 ekg dk 78,653/- c ;g Hkqxrku 10/73 ls 9/86 rd dk gS Vr% 10/86 dks ekpZ 88 rd dk C;kt 16 efguksa dk @24% 46,609/- l jde tks de feyh 1,45,655 1,44879 776/- n vizSy 88 ls twu 90 rd tks fofHkUu vf?kdkjh;ks] dk;kZy;] odhyks vkfn dkj.k [kpsZ gq, 20,000/- M bl vof?k es tks ekufld ihMk] osnuk rFkk v''kkafr jgh 25,000/- ;ksx 1,24,429/- +46, 609/- 1,71,038/- mijksDr Hkqxrku ''kh/kz vfr ''kh/kz fnyok;k tkdj izkFkhZ ds lkFk U;k; fnykus tkus dh d''ik djsa A"

A notice was issued to the complainant/ Counsel to show cause as to why this complaint be not rejected as not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In pursuance of that Mr. Hetram Agrawal, Advocate and Mr. S.C. Agrawal, Advocate appeared for the complainant. They were heard at some length. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the complainant is a "consumer" within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. On the basis of the reasoning given in Synco Textiles v. Economic Transport Organisation I (1991) CPJ 40 (NC) learned Counsel pressed that the complainant is a consumer.

THE principal question that arises for our determination in this complaint is whether the complainant is a "consumer" within the definition of Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act as he has hired the services of the opposite party for consideration. "Complainant", "Complaint", "Consumer", "Consumer dispute", "Deficiency" and "Service" have been defined in S. 2(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (g) and (o) of the Act respectively. Amongst others complainant means a consumer. According to the definition given of the complaint in Sec. 2(1)(c) it means any allegation in writing made by the consumer (which in this case is the complainant) that the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect and for that he prays for the grant of the reliefs provided under this Act. We have carefully considered the complaint and the documents accompanying it. The grievances of the complainant is that on account of delay in making the payment, he is entitled to the amounts mentioned in para 10 of the complaint. For the purpose of the payment of the salary, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the complainant has hired the services of the opposite parties for consideration and so he is not a consumer. When he is not a consumer it is riot necessary to consider whether on account of delay in making the payment, the complainant has suffered loss due to the negligence of the opposite parties which constitute deficiency in service. In a some what similar complaint Smt. Manorma Tewari v. Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan and Others (Complaint Case No. 83 of 1990 decided on 7.8.1990) by the State Commission similar view was taken which has been affirmed by the National Commission in Smt. Manorama Tewari v. State Government of Rajasthan and Another (First Appeal No. 61 of 1990 decided on 4.6.1991). We are of opinion that the complainant is not entitled to maintain this complaint for he is not a consumer. The complaint is not maintainable.

IT is dismissed on this limited ground. Complaint dismissed.