| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1113274 |
| Court | Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad |
| Decided On | Dec-06-2000 |
| Case Number | F.A. No. 104 of 2000 |
| Judge | P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. (MRS.) MAMATA LAKSHMANNA, MEMBER |
| Appellant | Jaya Swamy |
| Respondent | R. Thimmanna |
P. Ramakrishnam Raju,President:
1. Although notice was served, the respondent/complainant is not present, nor any representation is made on his behalf.
2. The opposite party in O.P. No. 312/98 on the file of the District Forum, Kurnool is the appellant. The respondent/complainant filed the complaint stating that he joined as a medical representative in the Company of the appellant on 1.2.1998 and left the organisation on 30.6.1998. Though the appellant has agreed to pay salary of Rs. 1,500/- + T.A. and D.A. and other expenses. But failed to pay the salary and expenses totalling to a sum of Rs. 9,400/- in spite of his request. Hence, he approached the District Forum.
3. The appellant/opposite party in his counter admitted that the complainant worked as medical representative in his organisation and his services were terminated on 29.6.1998 in view of his poor performance.
4. The complainant filed the relevant documents, i.e. appointment order dated 3.1.1998, L.R. sent to the appellant, letter from the R.M. to the complainant, etc. The appellant also filed xerox copy of the Field Staff correspondence dated 23.3.1998, telegrams dated 13.4.1998, 1.6.1998 and 30.6.1998 as well as Field Staff correspondence dated 10.6.1998.
5. On the basis of the material the District Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellant and accordingly directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,500/- towards salary, expenses in all to the complainant. It is this order that is questioned.
6. The main submission of Mr. C.S.N. Raju, the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (âthe Act for short). According to the definition any person who buys goods for consideration or any person who hires or avails of services for consideration, is a consumer. In this case the complainant is neither a purchaser nor a person who hires/avails of any services from the appellant. Even in Clause âo of Section 2 of the Act service means any service but a contract of personal service is excluded from the definition of services. In this view of the matter the respondent/complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. Hence the District Forum has no jurisdiction to examine the grievance of the complainant. The appeal, therefore, is allowed and the complaint is accordingly dismissed. However, it does not preclude the complainant from approaching the Civil Court for redressal of his grievances if he is so advised.
Appeal allowed.