Orissa

Rayagada

CC/26/2016

Pitabasa Hantal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Sanjay Manintenance Services - Opp.Party(s)

Self

13 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 26 / 2016.                                              Date.   13      .     7  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Piaabasa Hantal, S/O: Prahalad Hantal, Sairam Nagar, Near Sai International Hotel,   Po/ Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                                      …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.Sri  Mangaraj Rana,  Sanjay Maintenance Services(P) Ltd., 272, Satya Nagar,  Punjabi Colony, Front of Balvaban School, Bhubaneswar- 751007, Cell No.7504020005.        .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps   :- Sri K.K.Thakar, Advocate, Rayagada.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non allow  the complainant to continue the said service for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

 

On being noticed the O.Ps appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps taking one and another 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.Ps  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

  Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps 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 touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record it is revealed that there is no dispute that the complainant was engaged as Office Boy by the O.P. and entrusted with the work at   H.D.F.C bank, Rayagada  branch for the period from 23.12..2012 to   13.12.2015.

The O.Ps in their written version para-6 the complainant remained absent without informing the bank as well as the Supervisor. Since  the Branch  Manager informed the O.P. about his  absent, the Supervisor called  the complaint over his mobile phone and being asked about his absence, the complainant  replied  to the O.P. with certain faulty language and warned the Supervisor that if he will visit the bank again then he will  lodged a false FIR against him under SC & ST Act (as has been advised  by his advocate). Finally on 14.12.2015, the B.M., H.D.F.C Bank, Rayagada  informed the O.P. that if no steps shall be taken, he will be constrained to request the higher authority of the H.D.F.C Bank to terminate the contract with  the O.P.

The O.Ps in their written version para-7 that finding no ways out, the O.P. reported the above  matter to the  M.D. of Sanjay Maintenance Services (P) Ltd and for the interest of the company as well as the bank on 15.12.2015 the complainant was informed  not to  came to the bank as he has not change his behavior as per the  his undertakings dtd. 13.2.2014, 16.6.2014,  21.8.2014..

The O.Ps in their written version para-8 that  in so far as the allegations of None compliance of principles of natural justice is concerned, the complainant has been given all the opportunities, by way of  personal hearing at the presence of the bank officers,  written undertakings  from the complainant  regarding his behavior  as well as his duties. All the documents reveals that sufficient opportunity has been given to the complainant.  Instead of regretting the same, the complainant tried to hamper the interest of the company and misbehaved and threatened  the bank staffs as well as the Supervisor of the Company.

 

Now the issues before this forum are:-

1 )Whether the complaint petition is maintainable in this forum ?

2) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

3.  If so, the nature of relief to be granted to the complainant ?

Regarding  the Ist.. issue  the O.Ps have raised in preliminary objection in their  written version para No.2 filed in this forum.  They contended that the complainant is not a consumer as the case he has agitated before this forum is relating to an employee against his employer, which can not be maintained in a consumer forum.  The O.Ps assert  that the complainant   was engaged as Office boy in temporary basis  in the  H.D.F.C  Bank, Rayagada  branch whose appointment was subject  to termination at any time, and so the complainant has no locus standi to question the same.

On examination of the merits of the case It is understood that it is  the  case of  an  employee against the employer. Section  2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 lays down that “Consumer” means any person who   hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under  any system  of deferred payment .    In the instant case the complainant can not be said to  have  hired the services of the O.ps for any consideration.  In such circumstances the allegation with regard to the deficiency in service of the O.Ps does not arise to be adjudicated upon by the District Cosnumer Forums  under  section- 12 of the C.P. Act   so the complainant’s petition  against the O.Ps fails to invoke the jurisdiction of this forum. 

Accordingly answered the Ist.  issue.   The complainant is not a consumer under the C.P. Act in the present case in hand.  As the complainant is not consumer and not maintainable before the forum, hence  this forum need not want   to  discuss  other issues.

This forum relied  citation  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”.

For redressal  of   grievance   the  company employee relating to  service matter  for non allow  the complainant to continue the said service there is a labour court, where he can agitate his grievance for its redressal .    The  O.P.  whom the complainant was working is neither the service provider nor the  complainant who was  working as  labourer  is a consumer. The  complaint petition  is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

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 of.

Dictated and corrected by me.                  Pronounced on this            13^th.   Day  of  July,  2018.

 

Member.                                             Member.                                                             President