Delhi

East Delhi

CC/198/2015

ILA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPANCO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.         198 / 2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  21/03/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 14/12/2016

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          15/10/2016   

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mrs. ILA Gupta, adult 

w/o-Sh Rakesh Gupta

R/o 53, Godavari Apartment

Alaknanda, New Delhi 110019……...……………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

M/s  Spanco Ltd

Through Mr Kapil Puri- Managing Director

101-11, 1^st Floor, Som Dutt Chambers I,  

Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi110066…………….……………………Opponent

 

Complainant’s Advocate……………….. Sanjiv Nirwani  

Opponent’s Advocate ……....……………Sunil Chaudhary & Asso.

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case              

Complainant was employed for managing services of OP office from01/04/20109. OPs services were also extended to another place in same chamber from July 2011.  It was also asked by OP to work from her house. It had been alleged that OP did not give regular payments from Dec 2012 to March 2013 and thereafter, complainant did not receive any payment. It had been said that complainant did not get her payments from April 2013 to March 2014 amounting to 18 Lacs besides dues of Gratuity, Leave encashment, Meal coupons and contribution to employee provident fund, bonus and mobile bill re imbursements.

It had been stated that due to most deficient and negligent attitude of OP, had caused maximum harassment and living in distress condition.  

Due to these activities, she filed this complaint claiming her all dues from April 2013 besides awarding gratuity, leave encashment, meal coupons, contribution in Provident fund, bonus and mobile expenses. She also claimed Rs 25,000/-as litigation charges and any other relief as deemed fit by the Forum from OP.  

Notice was served. OP filed written statement through their resolution passed by OP in the meeting of board of directors of the Company held on Jan 10, 2014 authorizing Mr Jitender Singh, Assit. Legal to proceed with the case, annexed here as annexure A. OP denied all the allegations against them in complaint. It was stated that all the allegations does not comes under the Consumer Protection Act and thus complainant was not a genuine consumer as per the Act.

It had also been stated that alleged dispute between employee and employer does not come under the preview of section 2(d) (i) & (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as complainant had not purchased any goods for consideration from OP or any promise to pay by OP. By taking reference of citations from NCDRC as M/s Rohit Chemical & Allied Industries Pvt Ltd. Vs National Research Development Corporation, IV (2013)CPJ 87(NC) and Laxmi Engineering works vs PGS Industrial Institute, AIR 1995 SC 1428, employee –employer disputes does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection  Act.   

OP stated that now Delhi has been divided in 9 districts and each district has separate territorial jurisdiction and every district had one Forum. As this Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, because neither OP were either residing or gaining for their work under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and no cause of action had arisen in this jurisdiction, so prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

Both the parties filed their evidences of affidavit which were on record. Notices were served to both the parties for arguments, but none appeared on the date fixed for arguments, so file was perused and order was reserved on merit.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidences submitted by the parties. It was evident from the case that the present case pertains to dispute of wages between complainant and OP under Employer and Employee contract. The annexure CW1/1 marked here showed Statement of Accounts of Mrs ILA Gupta as on 10/02/2014 at 17.19 hours showing that complainant joined OP Company on (EPF) 01/04/2009 vide membership ID THVSH00447930000020647 with OP company ID & name as THVSH0044793000 as SPANCO TELESYSTEMS AND SOLUTIONS LTD. Complainant The statement of account showed from 01/04/2010 to 01/07/2013, where employee and employer were contributing their share of amount in the EPF every month. No other evidence were submitted by complainant by which she can prove deficiency of OP. The annexed annexure clearly showed the relationship of master and servant which comes under Contract of personal service. Hence, such matters are excluded from the purview of the Act. Reliance has also been taken from Indian Medical Association vs V P Santha, 1995 SCALE 273.  The complainant was employed by OP and was working in the Company and was contributing in the EPF account monthly, OP was also contributing their share of amount regularly.

Complainant was neither a genuine consumer as per the definition of Act nor had purchased any services from OP for consideration.

Thus, there is no merit in this case. We are of the opinion that this case be dismissed with cost, so dismissed on the ground of non maintainability of complaint under section 2(d) ii of the Consumer Protection Act besides territorial jurisdiction as complainant failed to prove merit in her complaint. We put cost of Rs 2000/- which shall be deposited in the Consumer welfare fund of this Forum within 30 days from receiving of this order.    

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

Mrs Harpreet Kaur   Member                                                                          (Dr) P N Tiwari Member

 

                                                       Shri Sukhdev Singh President