Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/602/2021

Colonel M.S. Rekhi (RETD) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation Punjab Office - Opp.Party(s)

Brig. B.S. Taunque

24 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	602/2021
Date of Institution	:	10.09.2021
Date of Decision	:	24.08.2023

 

                     

            

 

Col.M.S.Rekhi (Retd.) r/o # 2052, Housing Board Flats, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh -160047.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

M/s Indian Oil Corporation, Punjab Office, Sector 19, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its General Manager.

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Brig. B.S.Taunque (Retd.), Counsel of complainant Sh.M.S.Rana, Counsel of OP.

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.              Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the complainant in the complaint are that the OP placed a work order for providing security services for their Punjab Office as also residential complexes in Chandigarh and Panchkula for the period 1.9.2012 to 31.8.2013 at a total cost of Rs.25,34,124.60 (Annexure C-1). On conclusion of the security services, he submitted the bills for payment in the months of June, July & August 2013 bearing Nos 112/1OC/19- 12 dated 1.6.2013, 113/1OC/19-12 dated 1.7.2013 and 114/IOC/19-20 dated 1.8.2013 to the OP which were paid vide letter dated  16.09.2020  (Annexure C-2) after illegally deducting Rs.1162/- on account of TDS for which there was no provision in the agreement for providing security cover. Rs.17050/- on account of security deposit was paid vide letter dated 12.2.2020 (Annexure C-3). The complainant vide registered letter dated 8.12.2020 (Annexure C-4) pointed out to the OP that he received the payment of Rs.75167.31 (including security deposit of Rs.17050/-) in September 2020 after a lapse of 7 years 3 months and as such requested the OP to pay interest for the delayed period time @ 18% per annum to tune of Rs.98,093.34 and additional amount of Rs.25,000/- towards overhead expenses. According to the complainant, the total amount of the bills was Rs.75167/- including security, was liable to be refunded within a reasonable period of one month processing period, as such, the period of denial and withholding the amounts of bills and refundable security would reckon from 1.6.2013. The complainant requested the OP to make the payment and intimate the reasons for delay but no effect. Finally, he got served the legal notice dated 19.06.2021(Annexure C-7) upon the OP which was replied vide letter dated 24.07.2021(Annexure C-8). The complainant sent rejoinder dated 28.07.2021 (Annexure C-9) to the said reply of the OP.  It has been alleged that the OP is deficient in performing its part by deliberately withholding the payment of Rs.75,167/- for an unexplained period of 7 years and 3 months for no fault on his part. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OP to pay interest on a sum of Rs.58,157/- @ 18% from 1.6.2013 till the date of its actually realization, refund Rs.1162/- with interest from 01.06.2013 till its actual payment, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.     After service of the notice upon the OP, the OP filed the written version stating that the complaint is time barred and the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(7) and 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the complainant is operating a full- fledged security agency under the name and style of M/s Magic Eye Securities and Allied Services, which was empanelled by the Director General of Resettlement.   The complainant was not only earning livelihood by running the security agency but he was also providing employment to more than 20 persons. It is further stated that the complaint is also not maintainable in view of clause 20 of the work order dated 01-09-2012 which reads as under:-

“In case of any dispute the decision taken jointly the Management and the Directorate General Resettlement will be final and binding on you."

         It is stated that the work order dated 01.09.2012 has been duly signed by the complainant as proprietor of M/S Magic Eye Securities and Allied Services. It is further stated that the complainant had erroneously raised the bills with service tax as 3.09% against the sevice tax of 12.36% (including cess) in the respective periods. In fact full rate of service tax  in force, during the period in question was 12.36% to be distributed in the ratio of 1:3 between the service provide and recipient of service. Since as per the work order condition, the bills were to be inclusive of service charges and service tax, hence the same were processed by back working the payable amount in line with the work order.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.     The complainant filed replication to the written version of the OPs controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.     The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
5.     We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record, including written submissions.
6.     Instead of going through the merits of the instant complaint, it is necessary to first find out as to whether there is relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ between the parties?
7.     From the plain reading of the contents of the complaint, it is observed that it is the complainant who is providing services to the OP and, therefore, he is a ‘service provider’ qua the OP and the OP may be a ‘consumer’ qua the complainant. The complainant, who is proprietor of agency under the name and style M/s Magic Eye Securities and Allied Services, empanelled by the Director General of Resettlement, is providing services of security to the premises of the OP. So the complainant cannot be held to be consumer qua the OP.
8.     In para 2 of the complaint itself, it is clearly mentioned that the OP approached the complainant for security of the premises of their Punjab Office in Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. Accordingly, the OP placed a work order for providing security services for their Punjab Office as also residential complexes in Chandigarh and Panchkula for the period from 01.09.2012 to 31.08.2013 for a total cost of Rs.25,34,124.60P.
9.     Thus from the above reading, it is very clear that the OP had availed services of the complainant for a consideration of Rs.25,34,124.60P for providing security at OP’s Punjab Office at Sector 9 and residential complexes in Chandigarh and Panchkula.  Hence, it is clear that the complainant is a service provider and not the consumer of the OP because the OP has paid consideration amount to the complainant for availing the security services from the complainant. In para 12 of the complaint, it is stated that “the OP–Indian Oil Corporation is also a service provider and is involved in supplying fuels to the public throughout India and has many outlets in the City Beautiful Chandigarh”. So it is clear that the OP is service provider to its consumers in general i.e. OP is service provider qua its consumer only and not qua the complainant who is providing security services to the OP. Hence, the complainant is not a consumer of the OP because the complainant is providing service to the OP instead of the OP providing service to the complainant. The position is opposite in the present case because the complainant is providing service to the OP instead of availing services from it. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law in view of definition as defined under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Though the complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs yet taking a lenient view, we do not impose any cost upon the complainant.
10.     Keeping view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable before this Commission. The office is directed to return the complaint along with documents annexed therewith to the complainant, after retaining its copy. The complainant is at liberty to get his grievances redressed through alternative remedy, permissible under law and the time spent herein may stand commuted/condoned for the purpose of limitation.
11.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 24/08/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER