‘Consumer forums cannot adjudicate employer-employee dispute’: Delhi High Court

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has ruled that consumer forums cannot exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate a complaint arising out of the relationship between an employer and an employee. 

A bench of Justice Manoj Jain was hearing a plea filed against the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission not to entertain the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner, who worked with HCL Comnet System, was offered a vehicle under the Company Care Lease Scheme, where the employee was required to pay lease rental per month based on the financed value of the car and after three years, the ownership was to be transferred in the name of such employee. However, at the end of the hypothecation, though the charge was removed, the ownership was not transferred in the name of the complainant-petitioner and the employer continued to be reflected as the owner of the vehicle as per the registration certificate.

After verbal follow-ups for around a decade, the employee, who had left the company way back in 2012, moved a complaint before the Delhi District Forum. The District Forum declined to entertain the complaint lodged by the petitioner-employee, which was upheld by the State Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The Delhi High Court, also recently dismissing the plea moved by the complainant, said that “it is very much obvious even from the basic facts averred by the complainant that, unfortunately, he does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’”.

“The dispute in question is essentially between an employer and an employee. The nature of dispute raised by the petitioner herein does not show him to be a consumer as defined in the (Consumer Protection) Act,” it added.

The Delhi HC said that it cannot be assumed or inferred that while providing such a vehicle by the employer, either the complainant had become a consumer or for that matter, his master provided him with any “service”, so as to permit the employee to invoke the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It further said that “the aspect of deficiency in service was not required to be adjudicated as the complainant failed to cross the first hurdle and failed to demonstrate that he was ‘consumer’ within the definition given under the consumer protection law”. (IANS)

Also Read: R.G. Kar protest: Over 100 more senior doctors from four other Bengal medical colleges tender mass resignations

Also Watch: