Date of filing:-20/07/2017.
Date of Order:-17/11/2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 33 of 2017.
Dharmaraj Padhan, S/o Late Abhimanyu Padhan, aged about 67(sixty seven) years, R/o. Hirlipali P.s/Tahssil:- Attabira, Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Secretary, Sambalpur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Bargarh, Ps/Dist.
Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri D.K. Saraf, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri R.K.Satpathy, Advocate with others Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.17/11/2017. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, Member(M):-
The complaint pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the Provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986. The brief fact of the complaint is comprised here under.
The complaint contends that the Complainant was working as Assistance Supervisor under the Opposite Party i.e. Secretary, S.D.C.C., Bank ltd., Bargarh Po/Dist. Bargarh and retired from Attabira Branch of S.D.C.C., bank. That in the year 2007 while he was working in Chadeigaon and Kardola Service Co-operative Societies a sum of Rs. 3,883/-(Rupees three thousand eight hundred eighty three)only and Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred)only respectively were declared to be recoverable from his salary and as per the Audit report a sum of Rs.1,44,000/-(Rupees one lakh forty four thousand)only was kept in the suspense account of the Complainant by the Opposite Party since Dt.01/10/2007. Further the complaint contends that the recoverable amount was deducted from the suspense account and the balance amount was kept in the same account since Dt.01/07/2007.
The complaint further reveals that on Dt.11/02/2010 a sum of Rs.73,764.92/-(Rupees seventy three thousand seven hundred sixty four and ninety two paise)only was released infavour of the Complainant by the Opposite Party but paid no interest there over. That further on Dt.14/07/2017 an amount of Rs. 45,158.15/-(Rupees forty five thousand one hundred fifty eight and fifteen paise)only was released by the Opposite Party infavour of the Complainant but paid no interest there upon and as per the guideline of the Reserve Bank of India, the Complainant is entitled for the interest over the amount kept by the Opposite Party.
Further the complaint contends that the Board of Management, S.D.C.C. Bank in General Body meeting have resolved to pay interest against the suspense amount. The complaint further reveals that the Opposite Party has taken interest of Rs. 5,724/-(Rupees five thousand seven hundred twenty four)only @ 12%(twelve percent) per annum over the recoverable amount from the Complainant. That the non payment of interest by the Opposite Party to the Complainant over the suspense amount is a deficiency in service by the Opposite Party to the Complainant and the Complainant has sought for the redressal of the Forum to direct the Opposite party to pay interest to the Complainant against the suspense amount and also further direction to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only as cost of the litigation.
The Complainant to prove his contention relies upon the xerox copies of documents as follows:-
Order sheet of Sambalpur Dist. Co-OP Central Bank Ltd, Bargarh Page No.107.
Order sheet of Sambalpur Dist. Co-OP Central Bank Ltd, Bargarh Page No.72.
Being noticed the Opposite Party appeared before the forum and filed his version denying allegations of the complaint.
The version filed by the Opposite Party contends that as the Complainant was an employee serving as Asst. Supervisor under the Opposite Party, any dispute relating to service of the Complainant is not maintainable before this Forum. That due to illegal activities of the Complainant audit recovery was shown by the Auditor which has been admitted by the Complainant. Further version contends that an amount of Rs.54,765.50/-(Rupees fifty four thousand seven hundred sixty five and fifty paise)only and another amount of Rs.89,927.82/-(Rupees eighty nine thousand nine hundred twenty seven and eighty two paise)only has been recovered from Sri Dharmaraj Padhan, Retired Asst. Supervisor towards audit recovery for the year 2006-07 respectively for Chadeigaon, SCS and Kardola SCS. That as the society has not been made party in this Complainant, suffers from non joinder of necessary parties.
Further version of the opposite party contends that the release amount of Rs.73,764.92/-(Rupees seventy three thousand seven hundred sixty four and ninety two paise)only is on the basis of Dispute Case No.2/98-99 of the A.R.C.S, Sambalpur Circle and the said fact has been suppressed by the complainant. That the release of the amount of Rs.45,158.15/-(Rupees forty five thousand one hundred fifty eight and fifteen paise)only by the Opposite Party was on the basis of order passed by A.A.G.C.S, Sambalpur Circle, Bargarh/A.G.C.S, Bhubaneswar and for the suppression of facts, the case needs to be dropped. Other averments of the complaint have also been denied by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party alleging the dispute to be one service matter has urged the Forum to dismiss the Complainant against him.
Gone through the entire case record, documents available in the case record, heard pleadings of the Parties, the Forum found two distinct points to be decided in the case. As per claim of the Complainant he is entitled for the interest upon his amount of money excluding the recoverable amount kept by the Opposite Party in the suspense account for such a long period. To this the defense taken by the Opposite Party that as the relation between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is employee and employer and any service dispute arising out of this relation is not a deficiency in service covered under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986.
So far as the relation between the employer and employee, this being a exception to the Service defined u/s 2 (I) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 and the Complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of Sec 2 (I) d (II) of the Act and the deficiency in service U/s 2 (I) (g) of the Act can not be enforce against the employer. Because the relation between master and servant so also the relation between employer and employee the order to obey in the works to be performed and as to its mode and manner of performance as this being a contract of service excluded from the provision of “service” described under the Consumer Protection Act Hence the Complainant being a employee is not a Consumer of the Opposite Party (the employer).
The Complainant in this complaint has claims interest over the amount of money (excluding the recoverable amount shown by the audit report) kept by the Opposite Party in the suspense account. The Opposite Party is entitled to recover the amount of money as per the report of the auditor. The Opposite Party in his order sheet Dt. 11/02/2010 in page No. 72 has categorically mentioned that Rs. 73,764.92/-(Rupees seventy three thousand seven hundred sixty four and ninety two paise)only may be paid to the Complainant deducting the recoverable amount. The Opposite Party in his further order in order sheet page No. 107 Dt. 14/07/2017 specifically has made order to remit Rs. 9,607/-(Rupees nine thousand six hundred seven)only i.e. liable amount of Rs. 3,883/-(Rupees three thousand eight hundred eighty three)only and an interest @12% per annum calculated from Dt. 01/04/2005 to Dt. 13/07/2017 from the suspense payable account of the Complainant to the Chadeigaon PACS and the rest amount of Rs. 45,158/-(Rupees forty five thousand one hundred fifty eight and fifty paise)only be paid to the Complainant.
The Audit report regarding recovery of money from the Complainant for both the Chadeigaon and Kardola SCSs has not been filed by the Opposite Party before the forum which is a vital document in this case. The reference of Dispute Case No. 02/98-99 before ARCS, Sambalpur as mentioned in the version of Opposite Party, no such documents have been filed before this court by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party in no way has brought any evidence as to basis of keeping the huge amount of Rs. 1,44,000/-(Rupees one lakh forty four thousand)only in the suspense account for such a meager amount of recovery of Rs. 18,883/-(Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred eighty three)only along with 12% interest per annum for such a long period and when released the amount in two phase, one after more than two years and another after about ten years without paying any interest to the Complainant over his money where as the Opposite Party has deducted interest upon the recoverable audit amount from the Complainant. Now this is a serious injustice to the Complainant by the Opposite party and keeping any one's huge amount of money for such a long period and releasing him the amount without any interest is an unfair trade practice. The Opposite Party is thus liable for unfair trade practice U/s 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986.
In the instance circumstance and discussion of the facts and law involved in this case, the complaint is allowed and order as follows:-
-: O R D E R :-
The Opposite Party is directed to pay an interest @ 12% (twelve percent) per annum upon the sum of Rs.73,764.92/-(Rupees seventy three seven hundred sixty four and ninety two paise)only since Dt.01/10/2007 to Dt.10/02/2010 and further interest @ 12% per annum upon the sum of Rs.45,158.15/-(Rupees forty five thousand one hundred fifty eight and fifteen paise)only since Dt.01/10/2007 to Dt.13/07/2017 along with Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only towards compensation and litigation expenses to the Complainant within one month of receipt of this Order, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry interest @ 18%(eighteen percent) per annum till actual date of payment.
Complaint allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r (M).
I agree, I agree,
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra) ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
P r e s i d e n t. M e m b e r (W)
