BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

                                                            Dated this the 2^ND September 2010

PRESENT

    SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT

                    SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.73/2010

(Admitted on 9.3.2010)

Purandara.K.

Aged about 44 years,

So Ananda Rao,

Kudumbladi House,

Kedila Village,

Bantwala Taluk D.K.                           …….. COMPLAINANT

(Complainant: Appeared in person)

          VERSUS

1. Manager Human Resources

(who is in charge)

44 Dr.R.G.Thandani Marg,

Mumbai 400 018.

2. Ramesh Kumar,

(who is in charge)

Mott Mac Donald Pvt. Ltd,

501, Sarkar II, Ellibridge,

Ahmedabad-380 006.

3. Athul Patel

Mott Mac Donald Pvt. Ltd,

501, Sarkar II, Ellibridge,

Ahmedabad-380 006.

4. Shivakumar,

Team Leader / incharge,

Mott Mac Donald Pvt. Ltd.,

2^nd Floor, Opposite Canara Club,

Mallikatte,

Mangalore, D.K.

5. Manager,

Bank of India,

Mangalore Branch,

K.S.Rao Road,

Mangalore D.K.                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Opposite Party No.1: In person.

Opposite Party No.2, 3 and 5: Exparte.

Opposite Party No.4 : In person.)

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1.       This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

          The Complainant filed the above Complaint stating that, the Complainant is in service from 1^st July 2008 and working in Mangalore Branch of the Opposite Party No.1 and he has entrusted of duties in C.P.No.1015 (A3) and 1016(1) packages under ground drainage systems in the course of duties.  On 24.10.2008, he was met with an accident when he was returning from his duty and made him to be hospitalized and the same was intimated on 30.10.2008 to the Team Leader Mangalore of the Opposite Party.  On 22.12.2008 Manager Human Resource of Opposite Party sent registered A.D. stating that the Complainant is unauthorizedly absent from duties without prior permission and called upon the Complainant to give explanation within three days in the absence, he will be terminated and struck off from the master rolls with immediate effect.  The Complainant gave proper explanations with medical certificates but even though the Opposite Parties deliberately withheld the Project Complete Bonus which is entitled as per letter dated 10.7.2009 and other notices issued by the Complainant.  It is stated that, the Opposite Parties unnecessarily postponing the matter on one or the other ground and in addition to that the Opposite Party caused unnecessary difficulties while depositing the salary amount due pertaining to the Complainant.  Hence the above complaint filed before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to prays the following:

1. Prays compensation for the sufferance and financial losses of 1.5 lakhs.
2. Loss of Pay from December 2008 to February 2010 is  2,38,630/-.
3. To release the deposited salary amount on October 2008 deposited on 20.10.2008 Rs.14,095/- and November 2008 deposited on 1.12.2008 Rs.17,045/- with 14% interest is 35,499/-.
4. To release the Project completion Bonus amount from 2006 to July 2008 with interest 14% is 25,992/-
5. Cost of Notices of Rs.1,500/- and cost is petition/Complainant and further relief’s as deemed to fit to grant under circumstances of this case.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 not appeared but sent one letter by post and Opposite Party No.2, 3 and 5 despite of serving notice neither appeared nor contested the case till this date.  Hence we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.2, 3 and 5.  The acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1, 2 and 3.  Opposite Party No.4 appeared in person.

Opposite Party No.1 sent a letter by way of version contended that the Complainant is not a consumer, except that nothing has been stated and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the Complaint is maintainable?

2. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

3. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

4. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Sri.Purandara (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint.   Doc.No1 to 21 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure.  The Complainant produced notes of arguments. The Opposite Party not led any evidence nor produced any documents.

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the Complainant and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:                          

                       Point No.(i) & (ii) : Negative.

                       Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per final order.         

REASONS

5.    POINTS NO.(i) to (iv):

In the instant case, the outset of the Complaint as well as the documents placed by the Complainant clearly reveals that, it is a dispute with regard to the service matter of the Complainant with the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant who is a resident of D.K. District appointed by the Opposite Parties to provide a service under them.  Since he has not attended the duties, Opposite Parties treated his absence as unauthorized.  And further the Complainant came up with this Complaint stated that, they have not deposited the project complete bonus, deliberately withheld the Project Complete Bonus which is entitled by the Complainant. We find that the Complainant was on leave and the Opposite Party treated the leave of the Complainant as unauthorized absence.  Thus the matter is purely related to the service with the Opposite Parties which cannot be decided before this Forum.  In the repetition, we observed that the above dispute is purely with regard to the service matter with the Opposite Parties which cannot be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Complainant shall approach the appropriate authority to deal his grievances  and not before this FORA. 

In view of the above reasons, we hold that, the subject matter involved in this Complaint is not a dispute entertained under Consumer Protection Act, but it is a purely a service matter.  Hence the Complainant is not a consumer to entertain this Complaint.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that, the Complaint is closed with a liberty to the Complainant to approach the appropriate authority.  No order as to cost.

6.       In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The Complaint is closed with a liberty to the Complainant to approach the appropriate authority.  No order as to cost.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 2^nd day of September 2010.)

          PRESIDENT                                                   MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Sri Purandara. (Complainant)

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Doc.No.1 – 30.1.2003: Letter from Divisional Manager to the Complainant.

Doc.No.2 –1.2.2004, 25.11.2004: Letter from Divisional Manager to the Complainant.

Doc.No.3 –1.2.2005: Letter from Divisional Manager to the Complainant.

Doc.No.4 –1.1.2006 and 28.7.2006: Letter from Divisional Manager to the Complainant.

Doc.No.5 – 2.7.2007: Letter from Manager Human Resources to the Complainant.

Doc.No.6 – 1.7.2008: Letter from Manager Human Resources to the Complainant.

Doc.No.7 – 1.7.2008: Letter from Sanjay Kumar Sinha manager Human Resource Mumbai.

Doc.No.8 – detail of STD details BSNL Telecom District.

Doc.No.9 – 3.11.2008: Letter by team Leader Mangalore.

Doc.No.10 – 12.11.2008: Reply letter with acknowledgement by the complainant.

Doc.No.11 – 22.12.2008: Letter by Sanjay Kumar Sinha manager Human Resource Mumbai through Team leader Mangalore office.

Doc.No.12 – 26.12.2008: Reply letter with acknowledgement by the complainant.

Doc.No.13 – 12.1.2009: E-mail letter from 2^nd Opposite Party to the complainant.

Doc.No.14 – 25.1.2009: Request letter by complainant with receipt.

Doc.No.15 – Medical Certificate issued by Medical Officer.

Doc.No.16 – 10.7.2009: Request letter issued to 1^st Opposite party by the complainant with Postal Acknowledgement.

Doc.No.17 – 21.7.2009: Lawyer Notices with postal acknowledgement.

Doc.No.18 – 11.9.2009: Lawyer Notices with Postal Acknowledgement.

Doc.No.19 – Mini Statement issued by the Manager Bank of India Mangalore.

Doc.No.20 – 16.3.2009:  Reques-t letter issued to Athul Patel.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

-Nil-

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties: 

-Nil-

Dated:2.9.2010                                PRESIDENT