PRESIDENT (WORKS), BHORUKA TEXTILES LTD. vs H.S.CHANDRASHEKHAR

THIS is a revision petition filed by the petitioner, President, Bhoruka Textiles Ltd., against the order of State Commission directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,48,205/- to the respondent/complainant along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- and the complainant shall return the vehicle to the respondent.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant held a senior position with the petitioner Company, who after helping him get a car financed by Manipal Finance Ltd., provided a new car for the complainant. The instalments to be paid to the Finance Company were to be deducted by the petitioner Company from the salary of the complainant. The complainant, however, left the service after only one year during which period Rs. 24,000/- had been deducted for the complainant''s salary and deposited this with the Finance Company. Upon leaving the job, Rs. 1,37,301/- were deducted from the complainant''s terminal benefits. When the complainant approached the petitioner to, now transfer the car in favour of the complainant, which was in the name of the respondent, this did not happen. At this stage, the complainant approached the District Forum seeking a direction to the petitioner to transfer the vehicle in favour of the complainant as well as pay Road Tax of Rs. 7,800/- and car insurance amount of Rs. 3,405/- or alternatively return all the amounts plus Rs. 25,000/- for hiring of the vehicle for his use - thus in all asking for Rs. 1,97,806/-. The District Forum after hearing both the parties directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,48,205/- (Rs. 1,37,000/- being the amount deducted for payment to the Finance Company + Rs. 7,800/- + Rs. 3,405/-) and return the vehicle to the respondent. On appeal being filed by the petitioner before us, it was dismissed by the State Commission on merits. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the complainant is not a consumer, as no services are being rendered by the petitioner. It was always made clear to the complainant that vehicle shall be transferred in his favour upon payment of all the instalments by him. Complainant was an employee of the petitioner Company and thus is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It was never the prayer of the complainant to return the vehicle and get refund. The point of the complainant being a consumer or otherwise was also raised before the District Forum and State Commission and both of them have ably dealt with this question. This was not an employee-employer''s dispute. The petitioner was rendering a service, collecting/deducting money from the complainant''s salary, depositing it with the Finance Company and more so when the vehicle was in the name of the petitioner even when it was used by the complainant day in and day out. In view of discussions on this point by the District Forum and State Commission, relying on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shanta, III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=AIR 1995 SC 4463, we are not inclined to interfere with the view held by both the lower Fora; the complainant is very much a consumer within the meaning of C.P. Act. It is not disputed that the total money due was deducted by the petitioner Company - through deductions in salary while in service and the remainder from the terminal benefits, in lumpsum. After that nothing should have really come in the way of transferring the vehicle in the name of the complainant. Not doing so on the part of the petitioner Company amounts to deficiency in service. When we see the prayer, what the complainant desired was, a direction to the petitioner to transfer the vehicle in favour of complainant only as an alternative the complainant sought refund. To order refund of amounts deposited when the car has been in constant use of the complainant, does not appear to be just and proper. It is not his primary prayer seeking relief. The other party never refused to transfer the vehicle in the respondent/complainant''s name; only they were taking time to sort out the legal formalities. In view of that, we are unable to sustain the order of the District Forum and State Commission to refund the amounts ordered therein and return of the vehicle to the petitioner; what will the petitioner do with a long-used vehicle ? The order of the State Commission is set aside. Petitioner is directed to make arrangements to transfer the vehicle in the name of the complainant within six weeks of this order. Petitioner shall also pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for physical and mental harassment and cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Ordered accordingly.