Employees can be considered consumers under the Consumer Protection Act if they enter into consumer transactions, affirming the application of service standards to all service providers, including governmental bodies.

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad, dated 17.01.2020 CC No.198/2018, where under the complaint was allowed in part directing the opposite parties No.2 & 3 to trace out the documents of the complainant and deliver the same to him within 03 months and also to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for causing loss of the original documents, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- within 03 months from the date of receipt of this order and in case of failure, the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- would carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.

2. The brief averments of the complaint in CC 198/2018 are that the complainant is the Designated Officer cum Asst. Registrar in the office of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and previously he worked as Court Officer from 1994 to 2010 and as Asst. Registrar from 29.01.2011 to 02.06.2014 in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) for the composite State of A.P.; that the complainant was the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.141, admeasuring 300 sq. yards, covered by Sy.No.100, situated at Sai Nagar, Lalitha Nagar, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, having purchased the same through a registered Sale Deed, dated 22.02.1997, vide document No.1072/1997; that he took Advance House Building loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the opposite party No.2 for construction of house in the plot, repayable in 168 installments, commencing from September 2002; that on 22.02.1997, the complainant deposited original sale deed, original construction permission issued by the Municipality and original link documents of the plot and executed registered mortgage in favour of opposite party No.1 vide document No.11860/2002; that subsequently, the complainant obtained further loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for the improvement and repairs to the house in the year 2011; that the complainant repaid both the loans including the interest and opposite party No.2 issued “No due Certificate” obtained from the office of Accountant General; that re-conveyance deed was executed in favour of the complainant vide document No.2514/2015, dated 04.02.2015; that since then, the complainant made request with the opposite party No.2 to return the original documents and continuous to made such requests; that always time was taken by the opposite parties No.2 & 3 on the ground that the documents are missing; that the opposite parties have been stating that the documents were consigned and despite several requests failed to handover the documents which amounts to negligence and deficiency of service; that the opposite parties No.2 & 3 always stating that they would return the documents whenever, they are traced out; hence, the complaint.

3. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that the complainant is put to strict proof of all the averments made in the complaint, except those that are admitted; that the relationship between the complainant and opposite parties No.2 & 3 is only employee and employer, as such Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable; that the complainant cannot be a “Consumer” and the opposite parties cannot be “Service Providers”; that no complaint under C.P.Act, is maintainable against the Government Officers; that the complainant had been looking after the Administration Section, since October 2008 and dis-charging duties of Asst. Registrar (Admin) and he must have awar