Haryana

Karnal

81/13

Jai Parkesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director CSSRI - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Anand Ghawri

07 Jul 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.81 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt.8.02.2013

                                                               Date of decision:30.7.2015

 

Jai Parkash son of Sh.Surjan Singh resident of village Baldi, Post office Karan Lake tehsil and District Karnal..

                                                                   ………….Complainant.

 

                                                          Versus

1.CSSRI through its Director, Karnal.

2.Assistant Administration Office, CSSRI, Karnal.

                                                                   ………..Opposite Parties.

 

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present        None for the complainant.

                   Sh.Anil Munjal Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( herein after referred to as the  Act), on the allegations that the complainant is doing the job of contractor  for  providing   security as well as  labour. The Opposite parties  ( in short Ops), invited tenders for providing security and labour for sweeping purposes. The complainant submitted tenders and his tender was accepted by the Ops for the period  of 1.1.09 to 31..12.2009. As per conditions of the tender, the complainant deposited Rs.93408/- as security. The complainant worked for sweeping purposes for whole of the year, but his security contract was terminated on  31.07.2009 by the Ops. After termination of the security contract and after the expiry of the sweeping contract, he applied for refund of the security amount to Ops, but  then  put off the matter on one pretext or the other for long period and ultimately refused to refund the security on 31.12.2012. Thus, there was deficiency in services and unfair trade practices on the part of the Ops, which caused him harassment and humiliation.

 

2.                 Upon notice, the Ops put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant on various grounds. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no loucs standi to file the complaint; that the complaint is an abuse of process of law; that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct; that the complaint is time barred; that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant does not fall within the purview of the Consumer and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

 

                   On merits,  it has been submitted that the complainant was awarded the contract of cleaning/sweeping  for the period of  1.2.2009 to 31.1.2010 and another contract for security  services for the period of 1.2.2009 to 31.1.2010.  However, he failed to comply with the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract letters and defaulted in paying wages as per rates fixed by the District Authority, to the workmen, who filed complaint against him. Several notices were issued to the complainant for releasing the payment as per  fixed norms  to the workmen but to no effect. Accordingly, contract was terminated vide letter dated 31.7.2009/1.08.2009 and security amount was  ordered to be forfeited.  Labor enforcement  Officer, Karnal  also  found that the wages paid to the workmen were not in order and he filed a complaint u/s 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.The competent Authority vide judgment dated 10.5.2010  directed the OP no.1 to make payment to the employees and adjust the amount so paid in the  security, deposited by the complainant. The complainant also  wrote letter dated 27.01.2010 to the SAO of the Institute that payment of labour may be paid from the security amount  so that court case may be got disposed off. Keeping in view  request of the complainant and judgment dated 10.5.2010, the office released the difference amount   of Rs.19982+ Rs.5920, vide office  order dated 25.1.2011 for payment to the laborers out of the security and  balance amount was forfeited  due to non compliance of the  office order. The amount of Employees Provident Fund of the workmen is still outstanding against the complainant. It has also been submitted that no harassment or humiliation was caused to the complainant, rather workmen working under him and the Ops suffered a lot.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, he filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11.

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of Ops affidavit of Dr.D.K.Sharma, Director has been filed as Ex.OP1/A alongwith documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/9.

 

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the Ops and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                 There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant was awarded contract by the Ops for providing  labour for sweeping/cleaning and security purposes and as per terms and conditions of the agreements, he had deposited security  amount of Rs.93408/- with the Ops .

 

7.                As per case of the Ops, out of the security amount, some amount was paid to the workers as per judgment dated 10.5.2010 passed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act and the balance amount was forfeited  as the complainant had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the  agreements.

 

8.                     The main question which arises for consideration is that whether the complainant falls within the definition of consumer as defined u/s 2(1) (d) of the Act.  As per definition, a consumer means any person who buys goods or hire or avail of any services for consideration and includes any user of such goods with the approval of buyer or any beneficiary of such services when such services are availed of with the approval of person who hires.

 

9.                The complainant has not hired the services of the Ops, rather Ops hired his services for providing labour for cleaning/sweeping and security purposes.  Thus, the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer in any manner and as such the complaint u/s 12 of the   Act is not maintainable against the Ops, who hired his services instead of providing services to him.  In view of the foregoing circumstances, we arrive at the conclusion that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant does not fall within the definition of Consumer as defined u/s 2(1) (d) of the Act.

 

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such the same is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:30.07.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

 Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh.Anil Munjal Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   The case has been called a number of times since morning but none has put into appearance on behalf of the complainant. It is already 2.30PM. Further wait  is not justified. A perusal of the file shows that  presence of the complainant was marked on 25.2.2013 and thereafter none appeared on behalf of the complainant on 26.2.2015, 3.3.2015, 17.3.2015, 24.3.2015, 10.4.2015, 28.4.2015  on 19.5.2015 and today. The parties have already closed their evidence in support of their respective claims. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Ops. For orders, the case is adjourned to 30.7.2015.

 

Announced
dated:29.07.2015                                                                             

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present         None for the complainant.

                   Sh.Anil Munjal Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:30.07.2015                                                                            

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.