IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28282 of 2008 Between: The Tirupati Cooperative Bank Ltd.,G-Car Street Tirupati,Chittoor District, rep.byh its Managing Director T.Ramachandraiah, S/o.Lae Tiru Vengalaiah aged about 57 years,R/o.Tirupati, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tirupathi,Chittoor District 2 G.Chenchaiah S/o.Chenchaiah Residing at Door No.5-14,Ulli petteda Tirupathi, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to the order dated 12.9.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Reddressal Forum-II Tirupathi in CC.No.80 of 2008 and quash the same as one without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28282 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The petitioner, the Tirupati Co-operative Bank Limited, Tirupati, seeks to challenge the order dated 12-09-2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Tirupati in C.C.No.80 of 2008. By the said order, the complainant in C.C.No.80 of 2008, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, was held entitled to a sum of Rs.46,100/- being the gratuity amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of realization along with a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and costs of Rs.1,000/-. The opposite party in the consumer case, the petitioner herein, seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash the said order on the ground that the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint inasmuch as the 2nd respondent/complainant was not a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”). The claim of the complainant was also contested on merits. This court, by order dated 26-12-2008, while ordering notice before admission granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order challenged in the writ petition. We have heard Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. We find substantial force in the ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The 2nd respondent was admittedly an employee of the petitioner bank. He does not fulfill the requirements stipulated in Section 2(d) of the Act to treat him as a “consumer”. Further, the 2nd respondent would not be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under the Act, unless there is a deficiency in the service as defined under Section 2(o) of the Act. When the 2nd respondent himself was in the service of the petitioner bank, there is no question of his availing any service from the said Bank. Viewed from any angle, the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the District Forum, Tirupati, was clearly not maintainable. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the District Forum necessarily has to be held to be without jurisdiction. It is also to be noticed that a separate machinery is provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and more specifically, Section 7 of the said Act, with regard to adjudication of disputes pertaining to payment of gratuity. The proper course for the 2nd respondent would be to invoke the provisions of the said Act before the appropriate authority constituted thereunder and seek payment of the gratuity amount due to him, if any. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 12-09-2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Tirupati, in C.C.No.80 of 2008 is illegal and without jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we however consider it appropriate to permit the 2nd respondent to invoke the appropriate remedy available to him under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date : 30-03-2009 Note: Issue C.C. in one week (B/o) Prv​ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}