Orissa

Rayagada

CC/101/2016

M. Satyanarayana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Arindim Poue Chief Functionary - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                C.C. Case  No.101 / 2016.

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                    Member

            Sri M.Satyanarayana, S/o late Veerraju,Resident of Hatipathar Road,Raniguda Farm,         Rayagada, Dist. Rayagada..                                                                        …….Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

            Arindam Paul,Chief Functionary, Aurobindo Chauduri Memoria,l Great Indian Dream             Foundation,D-103,Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi.              …..Opp.Party

Counsel for the parties:                                           

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps: Sri V.Avatar,Advocate,Rayagada.

                                                                  JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that  the complainant worked as a Security Guard with annual remuneration of Rs.60,000/-  under OP 1 and worked till  15.01.2015 and the  OP has paid the remuneration till the month of September,2015 deducting Rs.500/- on account of IT deduction and thereafter the remuneration has not been paid till December,2015.  The complainant has not resigned  and the survives also  not been terminated by the OP. Hence, prayed to direct the OP to  pay the remunerations till the services of the complainant is terminated as per the law and also settled the claims and direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency in service  for causing mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and litigation expense and such other relief as the forum deems fit and proper. Hence, this complaint.

                        Being  noticed by this forum  neither the opposite party  appeared  and   filed any written version inter alia denying the petition allegation on all its material particulars. It is submitted by the OP that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant  is not a  consumer. There is no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice by the OP . It is admitted fact that the complainant was working as Retail Trainer and Additional In Charge  on retainer ship  basis with the  Opposite Party.  The present complaint is nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of law as the same is filed with a view to harass , blackmail and grab money from the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for any relief   because he has filed a complaint with a false, fabricated and concocted story and the allegations leveled against the opposite party are false and are not tenable in the eyes of law and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

                                                                   

 

                                                                   FINDINGS    

                        On perusal of the complaint petition and  the counter it is noticed that the complainant was serving under the OP for more than one year. Accordingly  the complainant is also entitled to get his remuneration till his working period. After one year of work non payment of service dues is clearly shows an utter non performance of statutory duty by the Ops there by encroaching upon the fundamental rights of a citizen who is already employed. The officers entrusted with the statutory duty does not do the same or do it arbitrarily causing much hardship  to the citizens and in order to  prevent  such arbitrariness the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued specific direction to all the government authorities stating that “violation of laws and repeated to dereliction of duty/misfeasance for extraneous reasons by officers/officials leading to subversion of the law. The Supreme Court’s directions were duly complied by the State Government for which the Notification No.2316(210) dt.10.08.2009 was issued (For more reference to See page 429 of S.C.C.2006).

                        The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has stated specific  in the case of Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. Vrs. Sanjaya Gupta and others in R.P. No.2858 of 2013 Consumer Protection Act,1986-Section 2(1)(d),15,17,19 and 21 Pension-Non-Payment-Pension is a Consumer-Law does not make any distinction between Government and Private Companies. The Hon’ble Commission directed the respondent (Petitioner) to pay the said amount within 45 days from the date of order otherwise, it will carry interest @ 10% till its realization.

                        It is settled principle of law that statutory authority should act under the provision of the statute and if they do not act accordingly consumer for a have the jurisdiction because not acting  under the provision, act amounts to negligence in duty/deficiency of service.

                        Considering the instructions of the Government from time to time and the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble National Commission on the subjects this forum reaches to give findings that the Ops are acted in a most arbitrary manner and the Ops also without applying their mind has acted in a most negligent manners and as such the OPs are jointly and severally responsible for the consequences. Hence it is ordered.                         

                                                                           ORDER

                        The petition  of the complainant is allowed on contest. The Ops are ordered to pay the pending  amount from September,2015 till the filing of the case ,TDS 10% ,Pending T.As  with 3% interest. The petition of the complainant is allowed on contest against the Ops. The order should be complied by the Ops within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is liable to get 9% on the above awarded amount  till its realization  and also  liberty  to file execution proceeding as provided U/s 25 and 27 of the C.P.Act.

                        Copy of the order be communicated to Deputy Secretary to Skill Development Department, New Delhi  to stop  the project under DDU-GKY ,Roshini Project till the payment of the dues by the Ops to the complainant.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this  30^th day of  November,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

                                      Member                                                         President