Per: Akatha.H.D.
JUDGMENT
The complaint has filed this complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 against the OP alleging deficiency in service in not allotting any work under the Mahatma Gandhiji National work Assured scheme to the complainant. Hence prays for the un employment allowances to the tone of Rs.20,400/- along with compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards physical and mental agony and Rs. 30,000/- words deficiency of service and Rs. 5,000/- towards miscellaneous and litigation
expenses.
Brief averments of the Complaint are as under;
2) That, the complainant had given an application in form No: 6 for the employment under Mahatma Gandhiji National Employee Assured Scheme in Gram Panchayat to OP 1 on 24-09-2015. The employment ticket No. is 65797, personal No: 297, Name: Siddalingayya Account No: 62229035591. The complainant further alleged that till today the OP 1 has not allotted him any work/employment.
The complainant further alleged that as per the said Act and Conditions any person who submits an application under
this scheme for employment and from the date of receiving their application within 15 days or from the date of seeking employment if employment is not given to him from that day on wards under Sec. 7.3 he will be eligible for an un employment wages in a year for 100 days. The complainant gave an application for an un employment wages, even then they did not give any wages to him.
The complainant further alleged that on 30-11-2015a legal notice was issued and the said notice is served upon the OP. The OP has given reply to the notice that they will enquiry about it and inform him and till today they have not given compensation. The reply notice is not satisfiable. The time specified in the notice is also completed.
The complainant further alleged that due to un employment and even for not getting the un-employed wages, the financial conditions of the complainant has become worst. Hence the OP has committed deficiency of service and hence filed this complaint for un employment wages of Rs. 20,4000/- along with compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards physical and Mental agony and Rs. 30,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs. 5,000/- towards miscellaneous and litigation expenses as prayed above.
3) This Forum after admitting the complaint, a notice was issued to OP’s and the said notice is served upon them. The OP 1 appeared before the Forum through their counsel and filed vakalatnam and main objections/written version to the main petition. The OP 2 & 3 failed to appear before this forum on the date of appearance and hence they were placed as ex-parte.
4) The main objections/Written version of OP 1 as under;
The OP 1 submits that it is false to say that the complainant was not given employee and without the un-employee wages his financial conditions has become worst and there by the OP 1 has committed deficiency of service and as per Sec. 7.3 the complainant is eligible for an un employment wages for 100 days in a year. It is also false to say that the OP 1 has failed to fulfill the service to be given and the said complaint comes under Consumer Protection Act. The Op further submits that the complaints is not eligible for the compensation as claimed in the prayer paragraph. It also false to say that all the points written in the complaint are false and concotted with cock and bull story and are imaginary one which is put upon the OP.
The OP 1 further submits that the complainant with an ulterior motive in order to give difficulties to OP and to grab the amount from the Government treasury without working is the main intention of the complainant and has filed this complaint. Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
The true Facts:-
The OP 1 further submits that under Panchayat Raj Act and N.R.E.T. Act on 06-10-2015 in their Panchayat Office openly in Panchayat of Kinal Village had issued a notice to the complainant to report on duty to work in Government place for the threshing yard, as per the order the complainant should have gone to that work place and report himself to do the work. In the same way he and his family members would have reported to the work place and would have worked. But as per N.M.R. Rules the complainant was not present there nor his family members were present. The said fact was replied to them when the advocate for complainant had issued a legal notice to OPs. Hence for this reason the un employment wages cannot be given to the complainant. The complainant is an habitual in filing complainants and has made his profession in filing false complaint in different Government offices. The OP further submits that there is no reality of facts in the complainant and the concerned authorities have rejected his complaint. Hence there is no deficiency of service by OP 1 and the complainant has no right to claim the un employment wages. The notice sent to the complainant to be present at the work, the copy of reply notice sent to the advocate and copy of N.M.R. documents copy of work plan, work estimation, estimation chart is produced for your kind perusal. The OP 1 further submits that he being an honest and sincere worker of Panchayat Raj Act and NREG Rules till now there was no allegation on him and the said kinal Panchayat Administration has got a good name and position as one of the best Panchayat is the state. The OP 1 further submits that in employment related to N.M.R. and N.R.E.G. scheme he performs his duty efficiently and with proper action. But the complainant has created all the facts and it is far away to reality and has given false information to the Hon’ble forum.
The OP 1 further submits that even today if the complainant is ready to do work and if he submitting an application then immediately it will be considered and work will be assigned to him.
The OP 1 further submits that the complainant without doing any work and without verifying the legal rules and regulations has filed this complaint in order to trouble the op’s and with an intention to get the illegal wages amount he has filed this complaint. Hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs as prayed above.
5) On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points that arise for our consideration are;
POINTS
- Whether the complainant proves that he is a consumer and the complaint has brought is maintainable?
- What order?
6) To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW 1 and he got marked documents as per Ex. A 1 to Ex. A 8 and closed their side evidence. On the Contrary the OP did not lead their evidence and even not produced any documents.
7) Heard the arguments of the counsel and perused the records.
8) Our findings on the above points are as under;
Point No. 1 : In the Negative
Point No. 2 : As per final Order for the following
REASONS
9) POINT No. 1 and 2: The Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complainant. The counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant is a consumer and there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP’s.
9) On short point for consideration in this complaint is whether the complainant falls within the ambit of the definition of “Consumer” as provided under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986. In order to find answer to the above question it is necessary to have look on the relative definition of “Consumer” which leads as under.
Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 defines “Consumer” means;
(d) “Consumer” means any person who –
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) 10[hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 11[hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].
12[Explanation. – For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;].
10) On reading of the above it is clear that the consumer is a person who purchase goods for consideration but does not include the person who buys the goods for Commercial purpose. If the goods are purchased for earning livelihood by way of self-employment that it shall not be treated as the commercial purpose and one has to heir or avails any services for a consideration.
11) To know whether the complainant comes within the ambit of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986, it is necessary to look on the pleadings of the complainant. The pleadings clearly tell that the complainant has given an application for an employment in the OP’s office under Mahatma Gandhiji National Work Assurance Scheme. The complainant himself as averred in his complainant of para No: 2 and 3 that the OP 1 did not allot him any work and even he did not give the un-employment wages for him since the date of accepting the application. The said act itself clearly says that it is purely the benefits from the State Government given to the un-employments to engage themselves to get work. Thus explanation to section 2(1)(d) of the Act is of no relief to the complainant.
12) The scheme appears to have been taking a consideration view that when a person files an application under this scheme for sake of the employment they have to allot him work or else give un employment wages to 100 days in a year with a view to get on employment for him they have filed an application to OP. When the complainant has filed an application to get work from Op’s, then the complainant cannot be brought under Consumer Protection Act and he will not be a “Consumer” within the meaning of section 2(d)(i) of the Act.
13) It is there clear that since the complainant has filed this complaint for the work of un-employment wages under the scheme of Mahatma Gandhiji National Work Assurance therefore he cannot be said to be a consumer. The complainant is liable to be dismissed on this case.
14) To our mind, all the issues pale in to significance before us. We refrain from deciding all these issue and dismiss the complaint as the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’.
15) On perusal of record clearly that the complainant had given an application for the Gram Panchayat under the Mahatma Gandhiji National Work Assured Act under form No: 6 to OP 1. As per the policy of the scheme the OP 1 should allot work to the complainant from the date of receiving the application or else as per Sec 7.3 in a year for 100 days the un-employment wages must be given. In such circumstances there is no deficiency can be imputed on the part of OP 1.
16) As far as deficiency of service on the part of OP 1 is concerned, the complainant nowhere mentioned in the complainant that he has availed any service from OP 1 to OP 3 for any consideration as there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and OP 1 because he has availed for job under the scheme and has not taken any service as alleged. The learned counsel for the complainant could not prove that there was any relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and the OP 1 to 3 and in such circumstances the complainant failed to prove himself as a consumer.
17) In view of the above, we don’t find any relief to the complainant as prayed above. Hence, as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986, the complainant is not a consumer. Hence at the same time the liberty is given to the complainant to approach the appropriate civil court for getting redressal of the grievances as per law. Hence, in the light of above observations we constrained to hold Point No.1 in the Negative.
18) POINT No. 2 :- In view of above discussion and findings we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
- Send the free copies of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, typed by him, typescript, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Forum on 18th day of July 2016.
// ANNEXURE //
List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.
Ex. A 1 Pass Book No: 297
Ex. A 2 Complainant letter Date: 30-10-2015
Ex. A 3 Application Date: 24-09-2015
Ex. A 4 Legal notice Date: 30-11-2015
Ex. A 5 Postal receipts Date: 30-11-2015
Ex. A 6 Postal acknowledgements
Ex. A 7 OP reply letter Date: 04-12-2015
Ex. A 8 OP reply letter Date: 09-12-2015
Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.
P.W.1 | Sri Siddalingappa S/o Ishappa Lakkundi, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, Kinnal village, Tq: Dist: Koppal. |
