Orissa

Rayagada

CC/427/2015

Sri Satayanarayan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prinicipal Secretary School Mass Education BBSR - Opp.Party(s)

Self

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 427/ 2015.                                        Date.     21  .    3    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                                                Member

Sri Satyanarayana Singh, S/O: Sriram Singh, Residing at Present     Po/Dist:Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                             …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Principal Secretary, School & Mass Education,Odisha, BBSR.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Odisha, BBSR.
3. The District Education Officer, Koraput.
4. The District Mass Eduation Officer, Bonalgir.
5. The Director, Mass Education,Odisha, Bhubaneswar.
6. The District Education Officer,Rayagada
7. The District Education Officer, Bolangir.
8. The  Director, Secondary Education, Bhubaneswar,Odisha.

…Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.Ps1 & 2:- Set exparte.

For the O.P. 3 & 4:- In person.

For the O.Ps 5 to 8:- Set exparte.

.

JUDGMENT

The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment  pension  towards  service benefit.

On being noticed the O.P. No.3 filed  written version and refuting the allegation levelled against  them. The O.P No.3  taking one and other 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.  The O.P. No.3  further submitted that he is not competent authority to finalise the disciplinary proceedings or pension of the complainant. Hence the O.P No. 3    prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed the O.P. No.4 filed  written version and refuting the allegation levelled against  them. The O.P No.4  taking one and other 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.P No. 4    prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed  the O.P No.5 to 8  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  18 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 from the  complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps 5 to 8  are 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.

The O.Ps 3 & 4   appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the    O.Ps 3 & 4  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 & vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

          Now  the issues to be decided by this forum are:-

          Whether this forum  has   jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the C.P. Act, 1986  ?

While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citations.  It is held and reported  in CPR-2011(4) page No. 482   the  Hon’ble  National commission,  where in observed  “Consumer forum  can not adjudicate  disputes without  addressing to the basic issues”.  In  another citation  reported in CPJ 2010(1) page No. 136 where in the Hon’ble  State Commission, New Delhi  observed  “Forum should decide the dispute of jurisdiction  first, application kept open to be decided later”

At this stage, it is appropriate to quote Section  2(1)(d) of C.P. Act,  which reads as follows:-

            “(d)”Consumer” means any person who-

1. 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
2. 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 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”.

 

Admittedly, in the case at hand, the complainant has not availed any service nor purchased any goods from the O.P. for any consideration, as such, he cannot be a ‘consumer’ under them. Only because the Consumer Protection Act is a social benefit oriented Act, it cannot besaid that any body who files a case before the District Forum,as the case may be he can bea ‘consumer’.

                       

On perusal of the  complaint petition this  forum observed  that the matters relating to  non receipt of retirement benefit  by the complainant  from  employer will not come under the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986,  where there is a special remedy is available to the parties under the State Administrative Tribunals Act,  1985 U/S- 14 & 15 of the said Act provided by the legislature  the forum did not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter(Supra).  Hence  this forum has lack of jurisdiction to entertain the  above dispute  and adjudicate  the same under the provisions  of the C.P. Act, 1986.  The case is not maintainable in view of the above discussion.

It is held and reported in SCC 1966(8) page No. 655 in the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Divisional Manager, LIC &  another where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court  observed  “Government  servants are excluded from  the  provisions of the Consumer Protection Act to claim any  damages  against the state.”

Further 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”.

Again it is  held and reported  in C.P.R.2013(3) page No.514  where in the  Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed   “By  no   stretch of   imagination a Government  servant can raise  any   dispute  regarding his service condition or for payment of  gratuity or any   of  his retiral benefits   before any of the forum  under the Act. The Government   servant  does not fall under the    definition of a “Consumer” as defined under section 2(i)(d) (ii) of the Act.  Such Government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits   strictly in accordance with his service  conditions and regulations or statutory rules  framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any  his grievance, may be the  State  Administrative Tribunal, if any, or High Court but certainly not a forum under the Consumer Protection Act,1986”.     

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 off.

            The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute  held  and reported  in  SCC (Supreme Court  cases) 1995(3) page No. 583 .  

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this          21st.   Day of   March,  2018.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President