C.C. No.228/2023
Sri Lingaraj Lenka,
S/o. Khetramohan Lenka,
Vill./P.O.- Baijanga,
Via- Kaduapada,
P.S./Dist.- Jagatsinghpur,
(Proprietor M/s Lingaraj Lenka & Brothers).……… Complainant
- Mr. A.K. Bhagabati,
Executed Director (HR) IOCL,
- Mamata Sahoo,
Dy. General Manager (HR) IOCL,
- Prakash Sahoo,
Manager (HR) IOCL,
All are of Pradadip Refinery,
P.O.- Jhimani,
Via- Kujanga,
Dist.- Jagatsinghpur- 754141. …..…Opposite parties
For Complainant………..Mr. S.C. Sahoo, Advocate
For Opposite Parties………..Mr. A. Dash & Associates
Date of Hearing: 27.6.2024 Date of Judgment: 26.7.2024 |
ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:
JUDGMENT
Complainant has filed the consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;
“Direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.18,74,179/- towards pending bill and Rs.5,00,000/- towards penalty for causing of damage in business, mentally agony harassment, financial loss, loss of dignity, and deficiency of service.”
Brief fact of the case of complainant is that, the complainant working as an agency under the name and style of M/s Lingaraj Lenka & Brothers at Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Paradeep Refinery to provide/supply of service of highly skilled, semiskilled, unskilled man power to number of 50 in different work side of Paradeep Refinery. On the other hand the complainant has also deals with hose handling, housekeeping, catering, mechanical construction, travel agency, both Govt. and General order supplier to Paradeep Refinery. The complainant has offered on work order issued on 03.12.2018 and directed to provide office support jobs at various location of Paradeep refinery, Paradeep under seal and signed of one Mr. Arup Kumar Ghosal, DGM, IOCL. The contract period was from 01.11.2017 to 31.10.2019 with extension of 2 years and the valuation of the contract work Rs.1,53,79,141.14 excluding GST which extended to Rs.3,07,58,282.28. The complainant has submitted the completion report to the IOCL Authority of Paradeep refinery towards payment of final bill Rs.18,74,179/- as on 06.4.2020. The opposite parties have been playing hide and sick and inviting the complainant to their office again and again and disclose different pleas such as payment of ESI/EPF etc. and also paid a deaf ear towards the request and remain silent for a long period.
Opposite parties have filed their objection raising question of limitation as the cause of action is beyond 3 years. Initially the contract was awarded for a period of 1 year with an extension of further period of another year which was completed on 31.10.2019 thereafter there was no further extension of the contract beyond 31.10.2019. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, after successful completion of work, the officer-in-charge is required to submit the completion report. But the complainant violated the term and conditions of the contract by failing to make payment of the wages to his workers and for non compliance of statutory deposit such as EPF, ESl, Bonus, Retrenchment benefit additional allowances, uniforms and the applicable GST and accordingly no such completion certificate was issued by the officer in charge.
Complainant is a service provider supplying labour to opposite parties who are hiring the service of complainant and payment is made by opposite parties to complainant as such it is purely a contractual matter and even if at any stretch it can be said who is a consumer then it is opposite parties who are paying consideration and payment but at no stretch of imagination the complainant can be a consumer as defined U/s 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Since complainant is not coming within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 other points and issues needs no answer and accordingly we find that the consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and accordingly the consumer complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this 26th July,2024.
