Advantage Consumer

	advantageconsumer.com Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela

Important judgments passed by the Supreme Court

Services rendered to a Govt. servant by his employer does not come under the purview of the Act

Civil Appeal No. 7092 of 1996
Decided on 18-03-1996

State of Orissa .... Appellant
Vs
Divisional Manager, LIC of India and another .... Respondents

Present:

Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy
Mr. Justice G.B. Pattnaik

JUDGMENT

K. Ramaswamy, J. - This appeal is treated as special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

This appeal arises from the order dated 17.2.1995 in F.A. No. 510 of 1992 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The respondent, Haribandhu Setha, filed a claim before the State Commission, Orissa, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') for damages. The State Commission awarded damages against the first respondent LIC in appeal, the appellant was impleaded as party, respondent, and the National Commission awarded damages against the State in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only and directed to pay compensation within a period of three months. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

2. The only question is : whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation to Haribandhu Setha under the Act and whether the claim is maintainable? Section 2(1)(o) of the Act defines 'service' as under :

"services' means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service".

(Emphasis supplied)

3. A reading of the definition would indicate that the services contemplated thereunder alone are the services within the meaning of the Act except excluded services mentioned thereunder. The excluded services are 'service free of charge or under a contract of personal service'. The concept of contract of personal service was considered in a recent judgment of this court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, 1996 CCJ 1 (SC). This court had held therein that the expression 'personal service' has a well-known legal connotation and has been construed in the context of the right to seek enforcement of such a contract under the Specific Relief Act. For that purpose, a contract of personal service has been held to cover a civil servant, the managing agents of a company and a professor in the university. There can be a contract of personal service if there is relationship of master and servant between a doctor and the availing of his services and in that event the services rendered by the doctor to his employer would be excluded from the purview of the expression under section 2(1)(o) of the Act by virtue of the exclusionary clause in the said definition. The other excluded service is service rendered free of charge.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent was a Government servant and, therefore, he is bound by the service conditions and the State was rendering services free of charge to the contesting respondent. Under those circumstances, the Government servant has been excluded from the purview of the Act to claim any damages against the State under the Act. Therefore, if any claim arises for the contesting respondent, it would be open to him to claim in any other forum, but not under the Act. If the claim is barred by limitation, time taken during the entire proceedings shall stand excluded.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Top

Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela