CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

DIRECTOR, ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS vs M.N.CHITRA ASOKAN

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 17 April 2001 · Citation: 2001 3 CPR 171 : 2002 1 CPJ 514

HON’BLE JUDGES
L.Manoharan , R.Vijayakrishnan J.
RESULT
Appeal disposed of
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 345 words
1.

OPPOSITE party in O.P. No. 54/1999 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant.

2.

COMPLAINANT approached the District Forum with a grievance that his gratuity could not be encashed due to want of non-liability certificate. He alleged that the loan that he took has been repaid by deductions from his salary, therefore, he is entitled to the payment of gratuity. The opposite party in their version contended that the complaint is not maintainable and that the alleged grievance of the complainant will not constitute a consumer dispute, they also took other contentions also. The District Forum made the impugned direction in favour of the complainant. It is the said direction that is under challenge in this appeal.

The point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is, since the matter concerns the eligibility of the complaint for the payment of gratuity the same cannot be a consumer dispute and in that view the complaint is not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the appellant placed before us the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab reported in Principal, Govt. Ripudaman College, Nabha v. Mrs. Narander Pal Kaul Gill & Anr., 1998 (2) CPR 18, in support of his submission that the claim of the complainant cannot attract the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as himself is not a consumer. In the discussion in the said decision the aspect as to the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the claim for gratuity is also discussed; and in such cases, it is held, the service of the State Government or that of the Accountant General cannot be treated to have been availed for consideration so as to treat the applicant a consumer. Having regard to the said view the complaint could not be entertained by the District Forum as, the complainant, under law is not a consumer. In that view the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the complainant has to approach the Competent Authority for redressal of his grievance. Appeal disposed of.