Date of filing :- 16/07/2014
Date of Order :- 22/04/2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 13 of 2014.
Motilal Debata, aged about 65(sixty five) years, son of Late Gajaraj Debata, Occupation- Retired Head Sevak, resident of village- Jhar, Po- Jhar, under Ps/Tahasil- Sohela, Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
State of Odisha represented through Collector, Bargarh, At/Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
District Welfare Officer, Bargarh, At/Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
Office of Account General, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar represented through Senior Account Officer, Bhubaneswar.
Sub-Collector, Padampur, At/Po/Ps. Padmapur, Dist. Bargarh.
.... .... .... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant:- Sri S.P. Mahapatra, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party
No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.4(four):-Sri M.P.Gartia, Addl. Govt. Pleader, Bargarh.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Himself.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...............M e m b e r.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt. 22/04/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member .
Facts of the case:-
Complainant named Motilal Debta filed this Complaint against the designated Opposite Parties, is a retired Head service who retired on Dt.31/01/2006 and during his service period was a member of General Provident Fund scheme vide GPF A/c No.13006 MSD(O). He ford that PF amount for November-2011 and March-2005 wee missing which were regularized later but also fund laser amount were credited. He apprised the matter before proper authorizes and Opposite Party No.4(four) been directed to disburse the dispute amount which was not been received till filing of this complaint for which this Complainant is filed for all the suffering and losses incurred in the process claiming amount Rs.10,625/-(Rupees ten thousand six hundred twenty five)only with 13 % (thirteen percent) interest till his retirement date and Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only as compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only litigation expenses.
Complainant filed and relied on the following documents to establish their causes:
Copy of Pension Payment Order.
Letter Dt.05/04/2013 sub-collector Padampur.
Letter of A.G. BBSR Dt.18/07/2013.
Letter of collection Bargarh Dt.21/01/2014 and Dt.26/10/2013.
In the initial admission hearing the Ist issue that is jurisdiction was questioned and Complainant been apprised about the fact that this is not the appropriate Forum of file the case. Submitted that similar kinds of cases were entertained by similar Forum and not questioned and shown supported documents. However, even though the Forum did not got convinced with a view not to deny opportunity of being heard allowed the matter and admitted the complainant notices were duly issued to the Opposite Parties who filed their version on Dt.22/08/2014 for Opposite Party No.3(three) on Dt.25/11/2014 for Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite No.2(two) and on 25/11/2014 filing documents to support their contention.
Complainant counsel filed no instruction memo on 14/01/2015 when the matter is in the stage of hearing and Forum decided to complete the procedure with having a hearing an merit on jurisdiction issue in the taken first being done on Dt.02/02/2015 with the presence of Opposite Parties.
The fact of the impugned decision of the Nuapada Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum been challenged at State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack which was main document relied by the Complainant at the time of admission was not know to the Forum and came to the notice of the Forum when Opposite Party No.3(three) filed their written version and supportive documents.
In view of the elaborate version filed by Opposite Party No.3(three) which cited and referred a series of judgments at different Forum including National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) this Forum only heard the jurisdiction issue and on elaborate submission of the Opposite Parties counsel and appreciation of the documents and different cited judgments found that the Complainant lacks jurisdiction and no further hearing on other issues were proceeded point to be noted here that the issue already been resolved by proper authority.
Under the circumstance Forum order that the Complainant is devoid of merit and dismissed.
No Costs.
Disposed accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Smt. Anjali Behera)
M e m b e r.
I agree, I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
