Orissa

Rayagada

CC/346/2015

Guru Prasad Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Oasis Distileries - Opp.Party(s)

Self

25 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 346 / 2015.                                Date.    23     .8  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President.

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                           Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Guru Prasad Sahu, Sai Laxmi   Nagar,  Plot No. 476, Po/ Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                                                                       …. Complainant.

Versus.

1. M/S. Oasis Distilleries Ltd., Represented by C.S.Biju Vasudevan,  President, Ground  floor, Regd. Office, H-102, B-2 Metro tower,  Vijay Nagar, Indore-10.

2. M/S. Oasis Distilleries Ltd., Represented by Parth Sathi Hota,  Area Sales Manager, VM-13, VSS Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751  007.                                                                     .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps   :- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment of salary a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

On being noticed  the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  15 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 3 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit.  Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record it is revealed that there is no dispute that the complainant was appointed   as Sales executive  under the O.P.  from  Dt. 1.10.2013  to till  May, 2015  in the pay  scale  of Rs. 90,000/- per year.

Now the issues before this forum are:-

1)Whether the complaint petition is maintainable in this forum ?

2)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

3. If so, the nature of relief to be granted to the complainant ?

 

On examination of the merits of the case It is understood that it is  the  case of  an  employee against the employer. Section  2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 lays down that “Consumer” means any person who   hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under  any system  of deferred payment .    In the instant case the complainant can not be said to  have  hired the services of the O.ps for any consideration.  In such circumstances the allegation with regard to the deficiency in service of the O.Ps does not arise to be adjudicated upon by the District Cosnumer Forums  under  section- 12 of the C.P. Act   so the complainant’s petition  against the O.Ps fails to invoke the jurisdiction of this forum. 

This forum relied  citation  it is held and reported in  C.P.R. 2011(4) page No. 128   where in the hon’ble National Commission  observed “Employee is not a consumer of his employer”.

 

For redressal  of   grievance   the  company employee relating to  service matter  for non payment of   salary, there is a labour court, where he can agitate his grievance for its redressal .    The  O.P.  whom the complainant was working is neither the service provider nor the  complainant who was  working as  Sales Executive  is a consumer. The  complaint petition  is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

The grievance of the complainant can be raised  before the appropriate court of law and not before this forum.  As the   case is not maintainable before the forum  we  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

Hence, the claim of the   complainant can not be accepted under the provisions of the C.P. Act. It is open to  complainant   ordinary remedy to approach proper forum.       

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

 

 

 

ORDER.

            In resultant the complaint petition stands  dismissed. The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is  disposed of.

           

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this            23^rd.      Day of   August,  2018.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President