Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of respondent on call.
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.11.2014 passed by the District Forum, Puri in C.C. Case No.56 of 2014 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,985/- to the respondent/complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order along with interest @ 12% per annum from 22.09.2012 till its payment, besides, Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.
As per the case of the respondent/complainant, he was working as an employee in the organization of the appellant/opp.party since 06.09.2012 in different branches including Puri and Jatni of Bhubaneswar Zone. As per the Policy of the appellant those who were working well for the organization were entitled to get incentives. He was working well and getting incentives earlier, but while working at Puri and Jatni Branch he was not geting his incentives for the period July 2009 to May, 2010. Hence, the case.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent/complainant cannot come under the definition of consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The respondent was rendering service to the appellant and not vise versa and as such there was no question of deficiency of service on their part.
As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent/complainant was rendering services to the appellant and not vise versa as such, there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. Moreover, respondent is not a consumer qua the appellant.
Furthermore, as per the case of the respondent/complainant those who were working well were being given incentive. He was also given incentive earlier as he was working well. It would not mean that, he was also working well at Puri and Jatni subsequently for which he shuld be given incentive.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed exparte and the impugned order is set aside.
