BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 139/2010 Filed on 11/05/2010
Dated: 30..11..2012
Complainant:
Linimol Thomas, D/o Shri. K.T. Thomas, Kachanolickal House, Mattakara – P.O., Kottayam.
(By Adv. G. Sreedharan Nair)
Opposite party:
Core Tech Info Systems (Pvt) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, St. Jude House, T.C.27/1213, Vanchiyoor – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. M.R. Anandakuttan)
This O.P having been heard on 20..11.2012, the Forum on 30..11..2012 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant was working as Software Engineer under the opposite party, Core Tech Info Systems (Pvt) Ltd; till 03/03/2008, that complainant completely executed the works assigned to her, that on 03/03/2008 complainant sent a letter to opposite party informing her intention to relieve from the company agreeing to pay the salary for 2 months as stipulated in the appointment letter issued by the opposite party, that the salary of the petitioner for the month of February 2008 was not credited to the account of the petitioner and she also sent money order for one months's basic pay of Rs. 5,000/- to opposite party which was refused by the opposite party for the reason not known to her, that complainant complied the condition for termination of the service of the complainant with the company and she requested the opposite party to issue her relieving letter from the opposite party along with experience certificate for the period she worked in the company, that opposite paty did not care to issue the same without which petitioner could not apply for any job. Hence this complaint.
2. Opposite party filed version contending inter alia that complainant is not a consumer as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act and there is no deficiency in service, that the complainant was initially admitted in the opposite party company on 16/10/2006, that she was imparted with training in various Software Engineering tools and technology to undertake various software development project activities in which company is involved, that during the training period the company had spent considerable expense to impart training to her, that on successful completion of training period she was first assigned with software development project for an overseas client of the opposite party and she was provided with the status of a team member in the project team, that she was not complying the project plan, that she was given extention of time, but irrespective of several occasions to complete the modules, she was not able to complete it, that delay on the part of the complainant caused actual delay in project plan, that many oral warnings and even memos were issued to her, thereafter she voluntarily tendered her resignation which was in violation of the service condition, namely the notice period, that due to the violation of the service condition by the petitioner opposite party was put to heavy loss, and company reserves its right to proceed against the petitioner in appropriate proceedings. That nothing bad can be attributed to the stand taken by the company as the employer, that none of the prayers sought for in the complaint can be allowed. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consusmer Protection Act?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
In support of the complaint, complainant has not adduced oral evidence. Opposite party has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D17.
4. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant was working as a Software Engineer in opposite party company. It has been contended by the complainant that she had executed the works assigned to her from the company and she had sent letter dated 03/03/2008 to opposite party informing him about the intention to relieve from the company agreeing to pay the salary for 2 months as stiputed in the letter of appointment in lieu of notice. On going through the complaint and version it can be found that issue raised in the complaint is in connection with employer – employee relationship and the opposite party employer who had availed the service of the complainant employee for completion of a project taken by the opposite party. Complainant has never availed any service for consideration from the opposite party. As per Section (2)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act consumer means any person who(i) buys any goods for consideration which has been paid or promised partly paid or parly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose or[hires or avails of] any service for 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 service other than, the person who [hires or avails of ] the service for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such service availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person.
5. In view of the above definition we find complainant herein has never bought any goods or availed any serivice for consideration, rather it is the opposite party who had availed the service of the complainant. As such complainant herein cannot be treated as consumer as contemplated in the Consumer protection Act. As such there arises no consumer dispute between the complainant and the opposite party. There is nothing on record to show that complainant is a consumer. In view of the above we are of the opinion that complainant cannot be held to be a consumer and hence the complaint in question is not maintainable before this Forum. Hence we need not discuss the other points under consideration.
In the result, complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before this Forum. Complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate authority for redressal of her grievances.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of November, 2012. Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD,
PRESIDENT. Sd/-
BEENA KUMARI .A,
MEMBER.
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA,
MEMBER.
