IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer complaint regarding delay in release of retiral benefits is not maintainable as employee retiring from service was not a consumer qua employer.

V.K. Patil, Member—This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called as “District Forum” in short) vide order dated 7.5.2008 in case No. 32/2008.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the applicant was employed on the post of Branch Manager with the respondent Co-operative Bank, Durg and retired from service on 31.10.2006. Bank had intimated the appellant on 5.7.2006, about his retirement. As per averment made by the appellant, by giving him three months prior notice by the respondent employer it would have been proper that his retirement benefits to have been settled on or prior to his retirement date.

3. The appellant has also averred hat due to administrative delay of bank his annual increment due on 30.9.2006 was delayed by 5 months. His gratuity amount Rs. 3,15,208 was released on 2.6.2006 and leave encashment amount Rs. 68,295 was released on 16.3.2007, much delayed after retirement dated 31.10.2006. The appellant claimed interest amount from respondent employer for alleged deficiency in service. The appellant had applied for interest on delayed payment and after his application only the process of granting relief after annual increment was started and the appellant was paid Rs. 8,031 by the respondent bank, as such, it was not proper to pay interest for delay as per contention of the Bank. The appellant alleged that administrative lapse of Bank has caused deficiency in service and for not having paid interest for delayed payment. Appellant had given notice to the respondent Bank on 13.08.2007 for interest on delay but no response received. The District Forum, Raipur dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant did not come within the purview of ‘consumer category.’

4. Case citations were referred by the appellant. In the case of Chairman, State Bank of India v. Brij Sudhir Chand Das1, Hon’ble Calcutta State Commission had upheld the order of District Forum which bad awarded treating delay of settling retirement benefit as deficiency in service but in this case the important point about considering employee, service with its employer comes under category of ‘Consumer’ category or not. This vital question of employee, relationship with its employer has been dwelt upon in the Supreme Court case Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Santha & Others.2 The aforesaid law citations have been properly considered by the District Forum. An employee to its employer does not come within the purview of ‘Consumer’ in terms of Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act. In the M.P. High Court Case 2002(4) MPLJ 474, benefit for delayed settlement of retirement benefit was allowed but under Consumer Protection Act the employee/appellant could get relief had he been ‘Consumer’ category. The case citation Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Appellant) v. Shiv Kumar Joshi (Respondent) with reference to civil appeal No. 411 of 1997 from judgment and order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP No. 238 of 1994 decided on 14.12.1999. The employee contributing provident fund has status of consumer and duties performed by Provident Fund Commissioner is ‘service’ within meaning of Consumer Protection Act. In the instant case appellant is an employee and the respondent is his employer, as such does not come in the category of ‘consumer’. The District Forum’s order is proper and needs no interference. Therefore the appeal is hereby dismissed. The appellant can seek remedy in proper Forum if law permits.

Appeal dismissed.

*******