In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad

Berhampore, Murshidabad.

Case No. CC/149 /2015

Date of filing:   15/10/2015                                                                                                                                           Date of Final Order: 26/04/2016

Aniruddha Upadhyay.

S/O-Aditya Nath Upadhyay.

18/5, S. N. Bagchi Road, P.O.&P.S.-Berhampore.

Dist- Murshidabad.PIN-742101 (W.B.)……………………………...Complainant                                               

             - Vs-

1). General Manager,

 Sodexo Facilities Management Services Pvt. Ltd.,

EN-7, Biswanath Builidings,

 Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091.

2). Facility  Manager,

Sodexo Facilities Management Services Pvt. Ltd.,

EN-7, Biswanath Builidings,

 Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091. ……….……….  Opposite Party

                           Present:        Hon’ble President,AnupamBhattacharjyya.

                                                  Hon’ble Member,  Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

                                                  Hon’ble Member,  Pranati Ali.

FINAL ORDER

Samaresh KumarMitra,Member.

               The simple verse of the complainant is that he was an employee of the OP Company as executive staff and placed before the Aditya Birla Group of Essel Nining, Kolkata on 07.08.2013 on the basis of Gross Salary of Rs.9000/- per month instead of gross salary of Rs.16,258/- per month as per their sweet will, violating the Rules of Company, and cheated the labour of employee which is against the Labour law. That the Company used to release salary through bank transfer in the account of ICICI bank vide No.003401538018 in the name of the complainant after deducting Rs.648.00 as P.F., Rs.90.00 as P.Tax. and Rs.158.00 as Employers State Insurance. The complainant performed his allotted duty without any interruption upto 02.06.2014 till handover the charge as per the verbal instruction of the Mr. Monoj Shaw, Facility Manager, Sodexo Facilities Management Services Pvt. Ltd. The complainant was not terminated and he did not resigned from his post. When the complainant filed a prayer for settlement of his  outstanding dues then the company asked him to resign for settlement of his claim. After getting resignation from the complainant the Company supplied him claim Form. The complainant filed the filled up claim Form before the OP Company on 25.6.2015 for early payment. When he met Mr. Monoj Shaw, Facility Manager, Sodexo Facilities Management Services Pvt. Ltd. the he informed that all the papers are lying before the Maharastra Office for necessary action. That after three months all his papers were returned to him without giving any instruction for further course of action on 07.08.2015. then he served a legal notice for getting his bonafide claim and which was received by the OP on 11.09.2015 but no action taken by the OP so he getting no alternative the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum for redressal as prayed for in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.     

Despite receiving notice the OP did not turn up so the proceeding run ex-parte against the OP.

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit in which he assailed that he was cheated by the OP like others violating the rules of the Company. The inaction on the part of the OP leads to file this complaint and he is deserved to get the redressal as prayed for in the prayer portion of the complaint. He also filed the Xerox copies of a few documents relevant to his complaint.

        The ex-parte argument as advanced by the advocate of the complaint heard in full.  The complainant filed the instant complaint by filing affidavit alongwith relevant documents and he also filed evidence on affidavit. So, this Forum has no impediment to adjudicate the matter on merit in accordance with the provisions of Sec.13(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act,1986.  

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?

 2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the OPs carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the       Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

   In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Aniruddhya Upadhyay is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

     From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein was an employee of the OP and during his service period the OP deducted the P.F of Rs. 648.00 per month and Employees Insurance amounting to Rs.158.00 per month. But after the resignation as per direction of the superior he is no more an employee of the OP. So he claimed the deposited amount including interest which was refused by the OP that comes within the purview of consumer dispute.

     (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

               The complainant is a resident of Berhampore within the district of Murshidabad and cause of action i.e. dispute cropped up in between the parties at Berhampore. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.    

    (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

             The opposite party No.1&2 being the officials of Sodexo Facilities Management Services Pvt. Ltd Maharastra,India appointed the Complainant as Executive of FM Operations and placed him with the Aditya Birla Group of ESSEL Nining, Kolkata on 07.08.2013 and paying a sum of Rs. 5400.00 as Basic pay, Rs.270.00 as House rent, Rs.3330.00 as Site Allowance, Rs.648.00 as P.F., Rs.90.00 as P.Tax., Rs.158.00 as Employee State Insurance( data collected from the pay slip for the month of September,2013). So the collection of PF of Rs.648.00  & Rs.148.00 per month is a matter of documentary evidence. For getting such Provident Fund & Employee State Insurance from the OP (the Employer herein) including interest thereon after leaving the company the complainant send his petition and later on filed prescribed claim Form but the OP did not settle his claim and lastly returned back his claim Form with no remarks as to settle. And no correspondence made on part of the OP in relation to the claim of the complainant. The complainant after leaving the Job or resigned from the Job as per direction of the Official of the OP, filed a petition dated 21.05.2015 praying for settlement of undisbursement amount without any delay. But the OP did not show good gesture by settling the claim of the complainant for which this complainant took the recourse of this Forum for redressal. The OP despite receiving the notice from this Forum avoided the proceeding of this Forum for which this Forum took the matter ex-parte and heard the complainant/ Advocate and perusing the documents and considering the averments of the complaint petition as well as the evidence on affidavit we may safely conclude that the complainant is entitled to get the Provident Fund proceeds and the refund of money if any as deposited per month in the Employee State Insurance.

        So we are in a considered opinion to allow the complaint in part and make a direction to the OP to settle the claim of the complainant which he deposited per month in the provident fund from 07.8.2013 to 02.6.2014 along with interest @ 9% p.a. and the deposit proceeds of Employee State Insurance within 45 days.  

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

            The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant is able to prove his case. So the Opposite Party has liability to settle the claim of the complainant alonwith the interest thereon. In the result we pass the following order.

ORDER

               It is ordered that the Complaint Case No.149/2015 be and the same is allowed in ex-parte against the Opposite party with a litigation cost of Rs.5000.00.

            The whole gamut of the facts and circumstances leans in favour of the complainant. We, therefore, allow the complaint and Opposite Party No.1 &2 are directed to pay jointly and or severally the sum deposited in the Provident Fund along with interest @ 9% per annum since the investment and the proceeds of Employee State Insurance within 45 days from the date of receiving this order.

            No other reliefs are awarded to the complainant for harassment and mental agony.

            At the event of failure to comply with the order  the Opposite Party  shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the  Consumer legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by regd. Post for information & necessary action.

Dictated and corrected by me.

                  Member,                                                    Member,                                  President.