STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SURINDER JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent joined her service with petitioner - Bank sometimes in the year 1965 and was in service till 17.12.2000 in different capacity. It is not in dispute that she was not in service of the Bank on 18.12.2000. Both, Bank and respondent have a different version, as while Bank alleges forgery and misconduct on her part for which a disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the Bank and eventually she was driven out of the job. Respondent, however, states to have taken voluntary retirement from the job. Respondent after getting out of the job, sought payment of her terminal dues and in addition to the gratuity that were payable to her, she claiming payment of Rs. 7,57,589 lying in her Provident Fund Account with the Bank authority. The issue thereafter, however, became debatable as the Bank on strength of attachment of restrain orders passed by different societies, defeating claim of respondent held that unless she would secure vacation order from authority concerned which issued attachment orders, Provident Fund amount shall not be released to her.

(2.) Aggrieved with denial of her claim by Bank, the employee took refuge to Consumer Fora filing complaint with District Forum. District Forum on consideration of the issue involved, accepting complaint, directed Bank to pay Rs. 7,57,589/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 18.12.2000. Compensation of Rs. 5,000 along with litigation cost of Rs. 3,000 was also awarded by District Forum. Appeal preferred by Bank did not find favour with State Commission and though material issue about maintainability of complaint filed by respondent against Bank was also raised, State Commission on examining various provisions of Consumer Protection Act, negating the issue raised on behalf of Bank, held respondent a consumer .

(3.) Issues that were raised before Fora below are sought to be reiterated before us also. Obviously, rival contentions were raised by parties about maintainability of complaint before Consumer Fora. Learned Counsel for Bank states that regard being had to relation of respondent-employee with employer-Bank, the former was not covered within the purview of Consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that part, in terms of Section 2(1)(e), the Act, the issue involved in the present context would not come within the meaning of consumer dispute and even holding that respondent was a consumer, action resorted to by Bank in withholding GPF accumulation of respondent for valid reasons would not constitute deficiency in service of the petitioner. Stretching contentions, learned Counsel states that intra-relationship between Bank and respondent was a contract of personal service and in that view of the matter also, services rendered by respondent would not attract, Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.