AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE allegations of the complainant in the complaint are that they appointed Shri Sanjay Kumar Saxena (respondent No. 1) as a Clerk in their company. He cheated the company as he recovered amounts from 36 persons and mis-appropriated the same. It is further alleged that they made a report to the S.H.O., Police Station Dausa, Rajasthan, Respondent No. 6, but he did not investigate the matter.
IT is further pleaded by the complainant that opposite parties Nos. 2 & 3 furnished surety for respondent No. 1 and therefore, they are also liable to pay the amount. They have filed the complaint praying, that the respondents be directed to pay the mis-appropriated amount to them. From the perusal of the complaint it is evident that they have made allegations of cheating against their employee and sought to recover the mis-appropriated amount from him.
The word ''service'' has been defined in the Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is provided therein that it does not include rendering of any service under a contract of personal service. The allegations in the complaint show that there was a contract of personal service between the complainant and respondent No. 1. Therefore, the service done by him does not fall within that definition. After taking in to consideration all the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the State Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Moreover there are allegations of cheating in the complaint. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed in-limine. The complainant may file a Civil Suit, if so advised. Copy of the order be given/sent to the complainant. Complaint dismissed.