Orissa

Rayagada

CC/325/2015

Sri Prabhakar Enugulla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tahasildar - Opp.Party(s)

Sri V.RM. Patnak

12 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 325/ 2016.                                        Date.      12.  .1. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Sri Prabhakar Enugulla, S/O: Late Dibakar Enugulla, R.I. office, Bissamcuttack,   Po/Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                                        …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Tahasildar, Rayagada.

2.The Collector & District Magistrate, Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                         .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri V .Ram Mohan Patnaik, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps  :- Sri Y.Madhu Sudhan Rao, A.G.P, Rayagada.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non payment of House Rent  allowances with effect from 1.8.2011 to  31.12.2012    a sum of Rs.11,823.50.

          On being noticed the  O.Ps  appeared through their learned  A.G.P and  contended that  the averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.Ps  deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps taking other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  The O.ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  complainant  and O.Ps.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

The  parties     vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

 

         FINDINGS.

          Now  the issues to be decided by this forum are:-

          Whether this forum  has   jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the C.P. Act, 1986  ?

While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citations.  It is held and reported  in CPR-2011(4) page No. 482   the  Hon’ble  National commission,  where in observed  “Conumer forum  can not adjudicate  disputes without  addressing to the basic issues”.  In  another citation  reported in CPJ 2010(1) page No. 136 where in the Hon’ble  State Commission, New Delhi  observed  “Forum should decide the dispute of jurisdiction  first, application kept open to be decided later”

At this stage, it is apposite to quote Section  2(1)(d) of C.P. Act,  which reads as follows:-

            “(d)”Consumer” means any person who-

1. Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any  system of deferred payment   and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys   such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly  promised , or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly  promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails  of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and  partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed  of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”.

 

Admittedly, in the case at hand, the complainant has not availed any service nor purchased any goods from the O.P. for any consideration, as such, he cannot be a ‘consumer’ under them. Only because the Consumer Protection Act is a social benefit oriented Act, it cannot besaid that any body who files a case before the District Forum,as the case may be he can bea ‘consumer’.

                       

On perusal of the  complaint petition this  forum observed  that the matters relating to  non receipt of House Rent  allowances with effect from 1.8.2011 to  31.12.2012    a sum of Rs.11,823.50 by the complainant  from  employer will not come under the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986.  Where there is a special remedy is available to the parties under the State Administrative Tribunals Act,  1985 U/S- 14& 15 of the said Act provided by the legislature  the forum did not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter(Supra).  Hence  this forum has lack of jurisdiction to entertain the  above dispute  and adjudicate  the same under the provisions  of the C.P. Act, 1986.  The case is not maintainable in view of the above discussion.

It is held and reported in SCC 1966(8) page No. 655 in the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Divisional Manager, LIC &  another where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court  observed  “Government  servants are excluded from  the  provisions of the Consumer Protection Act to claim any  damages  against the state.”

Further 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”.

The grievance of the complainant can be raised  before the appropriate court of law and not before this 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 the result with these observations, findings, discussion the complaint petition is 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 closed.

            It is held and reported  in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583  the Hon’ble Supreme Court   in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute where in observed   “The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this           12 ^th.   Day of   January,  2018.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President