The judgment establishes the principle that an employee can be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act if they are the beneficiary of a service provided by the employer.

Mr. T.P. Gupta, Member—These appeals have been filed by the appellants under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1986 Act’) against the order dated 22.2.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Kota whereby the complaint of the complainant-respondent K.K. Kulshrestha was allowed as against the Life Insurance Corporation and the Trustees, J.K. Synthetics Sr. Executives Superannuation Scheme and was dismissed as against M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and General Manager, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. As both these appeals have been filed against common order dated 22.2.2003 and as the facts and issued involved in both these appeals are same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Facts of Appeal No. 852/03 (LIC v. K.K. Kulshrestha & Others.)

2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent-complainant was an Assistant Manager in M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and had retired from service on 20.7.2001 on attaining the age of 60 years. He was a member of the J.K. Synthetics, Senior Executives Superannuation Scheme which was related to a Master Policy of L.I.C. of India. Therefore, the employee was eligible to receive retirement benefits in the shape of annuity under Life Annuity with return of Capital with Group Pension Terminal Bonus and commutation of annuity. The complaint alleged that he had made a claim before his employer in 2001 but he was not paid annuity and its commutation in spite of his writing letters after letters to the O.Ps. He, therefore, claimed an amount of Rs. 36,854 per year as annuity and Rs. 1,41,749 as its 1/3rd commutation and damages for mental agony and cost of litigation.

3. The O.Ps. filed replies that there was relationship of employer and employee with the complainant and as such the dispute raised by the complainant is not a consumer dispute and the complaint is not maintainable.

4. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum disallowed the complaint against the employer but allowed it against the appellant. Aggrieved with this order, the appellant has come up in appeal before us.

5. We have heard the arguments and submissions made by the learned Counsel and considered the materials placed on record of the Forum below.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has conceded that the complainant was a consumer. Under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer is not only the person who hires or avails of any service for consideration but also the person who is the beneficiary of such services. In the present case, the Master Policy enjoins responsibility on the appellant to pay appropriate benefit or benefits to the employee. As such, there is no doubt that the complainant is the beneficiary of the Master Policy of the LIC of India which was taken by the employer of the complainant for his benefit and is, therefore, a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act and is entitled to maintain the complaint in the Forum below.

7. Before adverting on the conflicting claims of the parties, it is necessary to consider the provisions of the Senior Executives Superannuation Scheme and Master Policy in question. The Senior Executive Superannuation Scheme was introduced by the employer of the respondent in 1975 with the object of compensating the employees who did not fall within the purview of the Payment of Bonus Act. All employees who were not covered under the Payment of Bonus Act were entitled to be enrolled as members of the Scheme. Under the Scheme, the Company remitted contribution equivalent to 15% of the salary of the Executives of LIC every year. An employee becomes eligible to receive annuity from LIC on attaining the age of superannuation. Under the scheme, the Trustees will act for and on behalf of the Members. The scheme also prescribes a letter to be written by an employee to the LIC for payment of annuity under the scheme.

8. Similar provisions have been made in the Maste