Full Judgment Text
$~91
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 08 October, 2024
+ CM(M) 3570/2024 & CM APPL. 59359-59360/2024
SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner-in-person
versus
HCL COMNET SYSTEMS SERVICES LTD .....Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CM APPL. 59359-59360/2024 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 3570/2024
1. Petitioner had filed a complaint before learned District Forum, Delhi.
2. His grievance, in brief, is that he was working with HCL Comnet
System (opposite party no. 1) and his said employer offered him with a
vehicle under Company Care Lease Scheme .
3. As per the terms of the aforesaid scheme, car was to be leased to
employee for a period of three years and the employee was required to pay
lease rental per month based on the financed value of the car. After the
expiry of such period of three years, the car was to be, eventually, transferred
in the name of such employee.
4. According to petitioner, he opted for the aforesaid scheme but after 36
months i.e. at the end of the hypothecation, though the hypothecation was
removed but the ownership was not transferred in the name of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:09.10.2024
17:04:32
CM(M) 3570/2024 1
complainant/petitioner herein by the opposite party no. 1 and as per the
registration certificate, his employer continues to be reflected as owner of the
vehicle in question.
5. Petitioner/complainant had left the company way back in the year 2012
and since despite verbal follow-ups for around a decade, nothing was done by
his employer, he eventually filed the above-said complaint.
6. I have seen the order passed by the learned District Forum, by the
learned State Commission (while entertaining the first appeal) and by the
learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (while
entertaining revision petition) and 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
employer and employee. The nature of dispute raised by the petitioner
herein does not show him to be a consumer as defined in the Act.
7. Consumer Fora cannot exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate a complaint
which raises grievance with respect to or akin or arising out of relationship of
employer-employee. It cannot be assumed or inferred that while providing
such 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 petitioner to invoke Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, 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 Consumer Protection Act,
2019.
8. Finding no merit or substance in the present petition, same is
accordingly dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:09.10.2024
17:04:32
CM(M) 3570/2024 2
9. Needless to say, complainant would always be at liberty to knock the
doors of the Civil Court, if so advised.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 8, 2024/ dr
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:09.10.2024
17:04:32
CM(M) 3570/2024 3