DATE OF FILING                    :     11.03.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      28.04.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     05.01.2015.

Kartick Chandra Bose

( Manager of M/S. Electro Power Syndicate )

42, Annada Prosad Banerjee Lane, P.S. Bantra,

District  Howrah,

PIN 711101………….……………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Mandira Ghosh

( proprietor of M/S. Electro Power Syndicate )         

2.         Sinchita Ghosh

( power  of  Attorney of  M/S. Electro Power Syndicate )

34/1, Jiban Krishna Mitra  Road, P.S. Tala,

Kolkata  700037. …..………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F   I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E    R

1.Complainant, Kartick Chandra Bose ,  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P.  Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to refund the    amount of Rs. 2,02,676/-, which was given by the complainant to the o.ps. as loan, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation  and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.            Brief fact of the case is that complainant arranged for some fund in September, 2013 on his personal capacity to run the business of o.ps. where complainant himself was employed as manager. Complainant took loan for that purpose and he told the creditors that loan would be repaid by December, 2013. In that way, he arranged for a total amount of Rs. 3,19,676/- within first part of December. Thereafter he started requesting o.ps. to repay the said loan in parts. And o.ps. also repaid Rs. 1,17,000/- in three installments upto 02.01.2014. But the rest amount is still to be repaid by the o.ps. But they are totally silent on the issue. So finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief. 

3.Notices were served upon o.ps. They   appeared and contested the case by filing written version.  

4.Upon pleadings of both parties three points arose for determination :

i)        Whether the complainant is a consumer U/S 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986  ii)         Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.All  the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly, complainant happened to be an employee of the o.ps. when he arranged for the fund to run the business of the o.ps. So, an employer-employee relationship was in force. And from the entire recital of the pleadings of the complainant, we cannot find any reason to define him as a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986.  The entire claim of the complainant is a monetary one and does not deal with either deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. or supply of a defective goods by the o.ps. So as a  consumer forum, we have no scope to deal with the matter in issue.  Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 135  of 2014 ( HDF 135  of 201 )  be  dismissed on contest without   costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.