SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of non-payment of balance outstanding dues by the Opp.Party are the allegations arrayed against OP.
2. Complaint in brief reveals that, Complainant was sanctioned for Rs.56,303/- vide Order No.PS/856/12 dtd.12.08.2012 for plantation of cocoanut tree under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act(MNREGA). It is alleged that OP out of the total sanctioned amount of Rs.56,303/- paid only Rs.27,.212/- which is fully utilized for the said purpose and the balance Rs.29,501/- is not paid till-date by the OP. Complainant as a bonafide consumer and being harassed by OP for not releasing the balance amount in spite of several requests to the PO, files this complaint with prayer that the balance sanctioned amount of Rs.29,591/- be released to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
3. Being noticed authorized officer of the OP Asst.Director of Horticulture,Kendrapara appeared into the dispute and filed written statement alongwith documents. The written statement reveals that under the specific scheme M.G.N.R.E.G.S. the amounts sanctioned to the beneficiary are utilized in 2 ways. In first the deptt. spent the money for cocoanut seedlings, organic fertilizers and pesticides, fencing materials, sign boards etc. and in second the beneficiary/jobseeker was entitled to balance sanctioned amount subject to his work demand, engagement, check measurement of works done etc. depending on the availability of funds under the scheme. In the instant case the deptt. has spent Rs.11,404/- and the beneficiary is entitled to Rs.43,533/-. The written statement of OP further reveals that on demand of 198 man days, the beneficiary-complainant worked for 185 man days and Rs.27412/- was paid for the work and wages to the beneficiary-complainant. It is categorically stated that the beneficiary was paid for his full engagement and no outstanding is pending with the office of OP, accordingly as per the procedure and guidelines the complainant has not deprived of his legitimate claims and OP be waived from the penalty on the Department.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsels for complainant and case of the OP on merit, as non-appears on behalf of the OP on the date of hearing, we also gone through the documents filed by the parties. On analysis of complaint petition, the question arises before us that whether the allegations presented are the subject matter of a consumer dispute ? Further, whether the Consumer Forum is the appropriate platform to redress the grievance of the complainant ? Admittedly the complainant was sanctioned with a certain amount under M.G.N.R.E.G.S for plantation of cocoanut tree where the OP paid the sanctioned amount by bifurcating a portion of the sanctioned amount on creating different man days to provide employment to the rural people. Now, it is crystal clear that by creating man days and paying for wages to the beneficiary, the OP availed their ‘service’ just for the shake of ‘employment’ . In this scenario can the present complainant be treated as ‘consumer’ as defined in the Sec.2(d)(ii) of C.P.Act,1985. Consumer means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose. In the present dispute complainant has failed to convince us that, he has paid, or promise to pay or partly pay any consideration to avail the service of the OP, rather the OP by paying the ‘wages’ as ‘consideration’ avails the service of the complainant/beneficiary. When the complainant fails to comply the definition of ‘consumer’ as per the C.P.Act, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Subsequently, the further allegations of the complainant need not require to be examined as the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. A suggestion is given to complainant, if, he deserves to redress his grievance, complainant may approach appropriate authority/Court of law and limitation, if any for filing the grievance should not be legal obstruction to file fresh complaint before the authority/Court of Law.
Accordingly, as per our observations the complaint is dismissed on grounds of maintainability without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 8th day of September,2017.
I, agree. I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
