D.P.S. Choudhary, President:
1. Appeal No. 500/1997 and Revision No. 24/1998 both have been heard together as they arise out of the common order. The appeal has been preferred by the O.P. against the order dated 16.5.1997 passed by District Forum, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 134/1996 whereby and whereunder directed the appellant to pay the salary of 18 months amounting to Rs. 25,650/-, towards provident fund Rs. 10,070/- and further to pay salary @ Rs. 1,425/- per month from the month of October, 1995 to March, 1996 amounting to Rs. 8,505/-. Thus, in all allowed a claim of Rs. 44,225/- besides interest @ 12% from the date of institution of the complaint against the appellant and also allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 500/- only.
2. The brief fact of the case is that complainant is an employee of O.P. whose Head Office is at Patna and Branch Office at Gaya. He was appointed by the O.P. and his job was goods checking. He has been regularly transferred from one place to another in the district of Bihar, such as, Chapra, Darbhanga, Patna and lastly at Gaya branch. After serving for about 20 years he was suddenly dismissed from the service. He was not served any notice or show cause before the dismissal. The contention of the complainant was that he should be paid the arrears towards his pay and provident fund of 18 months besides salary since October, 1995 to March, 1996. His further case is that he was regularly contributing towards the provident fund while in service and he is entitled for the amount deposited by him towards Provident Fund. When the O.P. refused to pay him any amount as claimed inspite of his several reminders and personal contact, he was compelled to file the case before the District Forum.
3. On behalf of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 rejoinder was filed and their contention was that the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum at Gaya. The complainant was appointed at Patna and the Head Office of the O.P. is at Patna, therefore, Patna District Forum has every jurisdiction to entertain such complaint. It was also their case that such claim is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and it is beyond its jurisdiction. The proper form for such dispute is before the Labour Court. The complainant is not a consumer. The complainant was dismissed from the service for the allegation of defalcation of the goods of the O.Ps. and delivery of the goods to wrong persons which caused heavy loss to the O.P. When an inquiry was being made towards the defalcation against the complainant he left the service without any notice and remained underground for long period. During the tenure of the service of the complainant every amount was paid to him and nothing was due with the O.P. The District Forum after hearing the parties held that complainant was a consumer and the case was maintainable before Gaya District Forum. The District Forum further held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and passed the impugned order as mentioned above.
4. From the submissions of the parties and after considering the facts of the admitted case we are of the view that complainant-respondent does not come within the definition of consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. A consumer means (i) buys any goods for consideration .... thus not applicable, (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid.
5. It is admitted fact that complainant was an employee of the O.P. on monthly salary. The service does not include any service under the contract or personal service. From the submissions of the parties it is further clear that it was the case of the O.P. - appellant that there was a charge of defalcation in the goods transported through the trucks under the guidance of the complainant and misdelivery of goods to wrong person. It is also the contention of the O.P. that when a detail inquiry was being made in the defalcation matter the complainant left the service and vanished for sometime. The complainant has refuted these allegations. Therefore, the facts of the case are disputed and it requires detail evidence and scrutiny of those evidence which was not within the purview of District Consumer Forum.
6. In the fact and circumstances, we are of the view that the complaint case was not maintainable before the District Forum on the above grounds. Therefore, the impugned order is not in accordance with the law and fit to be set aside.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
8. The Revision No. 24/1998 has been preferred by the appellants-O.P. against the order dated 12.5.1998 passed by District Forum, Gaya by which the Forum has awarded sentence of three months imprisonment for not obeying the order of the District Forum dated 16.5.1997 passed in Complaint Case No. 134/1996 and the petitioners were further directed to pay Rs. 44,225/- + interest thereupon. Since Appeal No. 500/1997 arising out of the Complaint Case No. 134 of 1996 has been allowed in which the revision petitioners are the appellant and the order passed in the complaint case has been set-aside, therefore, the order dated 12.5.1998 passed by District Forum for not complying the order of the above complaint case becomes infructuous. In the circumstances, this revision is allowed and the order dated 12.5.1998 is set aside. No order as to cost.Ordered accordingly.