U.P.State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs VED PRAKASH SINGH

THIS is an appeal against judgment and order dated 9.12.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jaunpur in Complaint Case No. 308 of 1996.

IT is not necessary to mention the detailed facts of the case, however, few facts which are necessary for decision of this case are being given. The complainant filed a complaint for declaring that he is liable to get Rs. 40,000/- and he is entitled to claim arrears of advance amounting to Rs. 2,150/-, recovery of Rs. 4,000/- which has been deducted from the pay and Rs. 2,800/- as charges for inspection and for testing the hand pump. He has also alleged that he has spent a sum of Rs. 6,000/- for doing this work. Thus in all he has claimed a sum of Rs. 12,800/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. He has also claimed the labour charges of Rs. 4,610/- for installation of a hand pump. The opposite party has challenged the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to try this complaint.

The learned District Forum, after considering the facts of the case, decreed the claim of the complainant.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

IN the present case, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the claim is about recovery of certain amounts which cannot be adjudicated by the Forum. It has further been argued that the services of complainant were not hired by the appellant. Hence the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of this word under Consumer Protection Act. He has further argued that it is a service matter and the relationship between the parties is that of ''Master'' and ''Servant'' and as such no relief can be granted to the complainant. After considering the facts of the case, we find that the complainant was in the employment of the appellant and was also given certain commission for installation of hand pumps alongwith cost incurred in doing so. According to the case of the opposite party, the complainant was a driver of the tractor on salary which was given by the appellant to the complainant. In the event of no work, such drivers were not retrenched but some other work was taken from them and the same wages were paid to them. Thus in view of these allegations it is clear that the complainant was an employee of the appellant and the appellant has taken service of the complainant for driving a tractor and for doing some other job. Therefore, the complainant was not a consumer of the appellant and as such he could not have claimed any relief before the District Forum as the case is beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum. The remedy of the complainant lies elsewhere and he should approach the proper authority. The appeal is liable to be allowed. Order

THE appeal is allowed. THE judgment and order of the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. THEre will no order as to the cost.

LET copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed.