Life Insurance Corporation of India vs KOMARAVOLU LALITHA

THE Petitioner/Corporation issued an advertisement published in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper dated: 19.03.1991 calling for applications for recruitment to five (5) posts of Stenographers. THE respondent, herein, is one of the applicants. THE Petitioner/Corporation conducted a pre-recruitment test for the purpose of selection of the candidates. THE respondent herein was not called for the written test. At that stage, she approached the District Forum, Krishna at Machilipatnam. THE District Forum passed an interim order dated 07.06.1991 that the respondent shall be permitted to appear for the pre-recruitment test to be held on 09.06.1991. She was accordingly permitted to Corporation filed a counter. After hearing both the parties, the District Forum passed order dated: 24.08.1991, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: "Modifying the earlier order, the respondent is permitted to value all the papers including the paper of the complainant kept in the sealed cover. She will be allowed to appear for vivavoce and skill test, if she passes the written test. THE Opposite party is at liberty to fill all the vacancies except one open competition vacancy which shall be filled up later subject to the result of the main petition. Adjourned to 28.9.1991."

AGGRIEVED by this order, the present petition has been filed. It is submitted by Mr. J.V. Suryanarayana Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent does not fall within the definition of "Consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is, however, submitted by Smt. Prasanna Laxmi, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the respondent has secured 62.7% in degree course and when the Corporation has fixed 63% as cut-off marks, the respondent should have been permitted to appear for the written test. The question that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition is not about the eligibility of the respondent herein. It is one of jurisdiction. It is asserted that the petitioner/Corporation is not providing any kind of service in recruiting members of its staff and the respondent cannot be considered to have hired any service which cannot even remotely be said to have been made available to the potential users by the Petitioner Corporation for a consideration. We find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, having regard to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The subject smatter of the consumer dispute does not relate either to purchase of goods or to the hiring of services for a consideration. Therefore, the respondent cannot be said to be a "Consumer" within the meaning of the Act. In those circumstances, the District Forum, Krishna at Machilipatnam does not have any jurisdiction in the matter. Therefore, the complaint filed before the District Forum is not maintainable. The proper course open to the petitioner is to approach the appropriate Forum and seek relief. In those circumstances, the Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Revision petition allowed.