Case: State Of Orissa Vs. Divnl. Manager, L.I.C.

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 Forum 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

Court's reasoning:
6. 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".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