Date of filing:- 08/09/2022. Date of Order/Judgement:-13/03/2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 29 of 2022.
Surendra Meher, aged about 64 years, S/o. Late Harishankar Meher, village/Po. Remunda, Ps. Bheden, Dist. Bargarh, Pin. 768103.
..... Complainant.
V e r s u s
Secretary, the Sambal Joint Farming Co.op. Society Ltd, Remunda, Po. Remunda, Ps. Bheden, Dist. Bargarh, Pin. 768103.
….. Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Smt. M. Mishra
For the Opposite Party :- :- Sri M.K. Satpathy with associates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agarwal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.13/03/2023. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Anju Agarwal, Member(W) :-
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant was an employee of the Opposite Party Co. operative society from 08/01/1982 to 31/12/2018 for a period of 36 years 11 months and 37 days. The Complainant was drawing Rs. 34,178/-(Rupees thirty four thousand one hundred seventy eight)only salary during December 2018. After superannuation within one month the gratuity amount should be released but the Opposite Party failed to do so. Several notice was given but the Opposite Party remained silent. The President of Opposite Party society approved for payment and directed the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party till date not released the amount for which as a senior citizen the Complainant is suffering a lot in his post retired life and facing difficulties in maintenance of the family and old age ailments. The gratuity amount comes to Rs. 7,29,569/-(Rupees seven lakh twenty nine thousand five hundred sixty nine)only which is payable by the Opposite party. Hence the Opposite Party is deficient in its service due to non-release of gratuity amount to the Complainant.
- The case of the Opposite Party is the Opposite party filed its version and submitted that the Complainant is not a Consumer and the case suffer from non joinder of necessary parties. Again the Opposite Party submitted that the secretary of society has no financial power, there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. The secretary Shiba Bhoi as in charge since 23/03/2021 has no personal knowledge and audit of the society has not been made for which disbursement of dues no made. C.M.C. No. 63/2019 under payment of wages Act is pending before S.D.J.M. Bargarh. For same claim this case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
- Perused the Complaint petition, version filed by the Opposite Parties and documets filed by the parties and following issues are fremed:-
1. Whether the Complaint is a Consumer of the Opposite party society?
2. Whether the Complaint suffers for non joinder of necessary parties?
3. Whether the case is barred by res judicata?
4. Is the Opposite Party deficient in its service?
5. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?
Issue No.1.
The Honble Supreme Court in R.P.F.C. Vrs Bhavani 2008 (II) CPJ (SC) held that pensionary benefits are coming under the perview of Consumer For a. Accordingly the Complainant is a Consumer of the Opposite Party.
Issue No.2.
The Opposite Party in this case did not mention who are the necessary parties. As per Orissa Co.op Societies Act 1962 the Committee of management is the sole authority in a society and the secretary of the society is the representative of the society/committee of Management who can sue and be sued on behalf of the society as per Rule 31 of the O.C.S. Rules 1965. The duties of Secretary as chief Executive officer has been marked in the said rule. As chief Executive Officer the secretary is the right party for the committee of management.
Issue No.3.
The Opposite Party alleged that CMC No. 63/2019 under payment of wagtes Act is pending before S.D.J.M. Bargarh. But no documents was filed by the Opposite Party. The Complainant submitted that the cause of action and prayer in both cases are different. The contention of the Opposite Party is not acceptable. Accordingly the case is not barred by principle of res judicata.
Issue No.4.
It is the admitted case of the both the parties that the Complainant was an employee for the period 08/01/1982 to 31/12/2018. The Opposite party did not challenge the gratuity amount of Rs. 7,29,569/-(Rupees seven lakh twenty nine thousand five hundred sixty nine)only and the resolution made by the authority to disburse the gratuity amount. Gratuity is a statutory payment within one month of termination of service as per the payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (sec 4). The Opposite Party is taking plea that due to audit the payment has not paid. It is the duty of the secretary to take step for audit of the society afgter 2009-10. During 2009-10 no any audit recovery shown against the Complainant, which proves that intentionally payment has not been made by the Opposite Party.
Accordingly the Opposite party is deficient in its service.
Issue No.5.
For deficiency in service of the Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled to get relief. Accordingly the issue is answered and following order is made.
O R D E R
The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite party. The Opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 7,29,569/-(Rupees seven lakh twenty nine thousand five hundred sixty nine)only with 7% interest from the date of retirement to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order. Further the Opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh)only compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand)only for litigation expences to the Complainant. Failing which the entire amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realization.
Order pronounced in open court on this 13th day of March 2023.
Supply free copies to the parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree/-
( Smt. Jigeesha Mishra) (Smt. Anju Agarwal)
Dt.13/03/2023 Dt.13/03/2023
M e m b e r (w) Member (W)
Uploaded by
(Sri Dusmanta Padhan)
Office Assistant.
