REGIONAL MANAGER, UPSRTC vs Kanti Devi

THIS is an appeal filed by the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Azamgarh against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Kushinagar dated 16.10.1998 in Complaint Case No. 67of 1998. The facts of the case are as follows

SMT. Kanti Devi w/o Sri Ashok Prasad, filed a complaint before the District Forum, Kushinagar. Sri Ashok Prasad, husband of the complainant, SMT. Kanti Devi, was employed as a Driver with the appellant and was suspended from services. The complainant prayed before the Forum that 3/4th of the salary, to which her husband was entitled as subsistence allowance, was denied to him and it was deficiency on the part of the employer. The District Forum found the case of the complainant as correct and directed the opposite parties, appellant in this case, to pay subsistence allowance to the husband of the complainant alongwith 10% interest and a compensation of Rs. 200/-.

The appellants have stated that the order dated 16.10.1998 against them was ex-parte, illegal and arbitrary. It was stated that the order of the Forum was without jurisdiction as the complainant was not covered under the Consumer Protection Act and the proper Forum for redressal of such grievance was Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. The complainant is neither a consumer nor is he covered under the definition of service under the Consumer Protection Act. Thus the District Forum has acted beyond the jurisdiction and even gone ahead to the extent of executing its order by passing order on 25.11.1998 by forcing the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 19,697.90 by means of demand draft in favour of the District Consumer Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. M.H. Khan and Mrs. Prema Latha Nigam, Counsel for the applicant. The papers on record have also been perused. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) defined consumer as "any person who (i) buys a good fora consideration, (ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration". Similarly Section 2(1)(g) deals with deficiency which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming for inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance, which is required to be maintained. The subject matter contained in this appeal is the question of denial of subsistence allowance to an employee of the State Road Transport Corporation. The employee, Sri Ashok Prasad, was working as Driver with U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, was placed under suspension for some default and was not paid subsistence allowance which is normally granted to a suspended employee. Thus, the suspended employee does not, in any way, becomes a consumer when it comes to denial of subsistence allowance to him by his employer. No doubt, subsistence allowance has to be given in all the cases, where suspension takes place, but that does not mean that he becomes a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The relationship here is the relationship of an employer and an employee. The employee-employer relationship will certainly not be covered under this law and the Hon''ble District Forum, Kushinagar has erred in interpreting law in their order dated 16.10.1998. The judgment and order dated 16.10.1998 of District Consumer Forum, Kushinagar is therefore bad in the eyes of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Proper course of action for the husband of the complainant, ho is a Driver in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, was to seek remedy elsewhere and he should have gone to the higher Authorities of UPSRTC or the Labour Court or to the Tribunal. Consumer FORA are not the proper FORA for redressal of such grievance. The judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside and appeal is to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.10.1998 in Complaint Case No. 10/98 passed by the District. Consumer Forum, Kushinagar is quashed. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed.