AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
THE case of the Complainant is that he was working as a Clerk in the Canara Bank, Gobichettipalayam and other places. He sort voluntary retirement on condition. It is his grievance that the Opposite Party had not paid his D.A. bills pertained to him, Housing Loan, Terminal and other benefits and hence this complaint. The short question is whether the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The relationship between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that of Employee and Employer. By no stretch of imagination, the Complainant can claim to be a consumer who has hired or availed of the services of the Opposite Party for consideration. The remedy of the Complainant, if any, is before the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. This complaint is misconceived.
In the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.