Orissa

Rayagada

CC/457/2015

Kotireedy Jejgopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Toshniwal Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Self

24 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 457 / 2015.                                           Date.       24  .     4  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       Preident.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Kotiredy Tejgopal, S/O: K.Venugopal, At:Karan Street, Po/ Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                                                                 …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager, M/S. Toshniwal Enterprises,  Controlls Pvt. Ltd., Toshniwal House, Kolkatta-700012  State: West Bengal.                                                              .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps   :- In person.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment of unpaid salary from June, 2015 to September,2015 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 appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

  Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record it is revealed that there is no dispute that the complainant was appointed   as R.F. Engineer ( Tressor  ) from  Dt. 1.6.2015  in the pay  scale  of Rs. 13,000/- per month.

The  O.P  in their written version  para-9  has   clearly   mentioned  that the remuneration of   the complainant  has been   transferred to the account of his brother which he had provided to the company  bearing   account No. 35117066234.

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  R.F. Engineer  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               24 ^th.   Day of   April,  2018.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President