Orissa

Debagarh

CC/56/2017

Ramesh Badaika, aged about 25 years, S/O-Trinatha Badaika - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director, RSETI(CENT-RSETI) - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. K.B. Meher

03 Jul 2018

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/56/2017
( Date of Filing : 13 Nov 2017 )
 
1. Ramesh Badaika, aged about 25 years, S/O-Trinatha Badaika
At/PO-Sonpur, PS-Daringbadi, At present at-Guru Sahi, Ward No-2, PO/PS/Dist-Deogarh
Kandhamal
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Director, RSETI(CENT-RSETI)
At-Pradhansahi, Po/PS-Deogarh
Deogarh
Odisha
2. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Deogarh
At/PO/PS-Deogarh
Deogarh
Odisha
3. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India
At-Fram Road Sambalpur
Sambalpur
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Jayanti Pradhan MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Arati Das MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 03 Jul 2018
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

C.C No-56/2017

Present:- Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra. President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member(W), Smt. Arati Das (Member).

Ramesh Badaik, aged about 25 years,

S/O-Trinath Badaika,

R/O-At/P.O-Sonpur,P.S-Daringbadi,

Dist-Kandhamal.

At present at-Gurusahi,Ward No-2,

P.O/P.s/Dist-Deogarh.                                                       ...   Complainant.

                                    -Versus-

1.The Director,​

 RSETI (CENT-RSETI

 At/PO/PS/Dist-Deogarh

​          2.  Branch Manager,

Central Bank,Deogarh,

P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh.  

         3. The Regional Manager,

             Central Bank

             At-Farm Road,Sambalpur,

              P.S/Dist-Sambalpur.

 

 

 

For the Complainant             :-        Sri K.B. Meher, Advocate.

For the O.P.No.1, 2 & 3       :-        Sri P.K.Ratha & S.K.Ratha, Advocate.                                                                                                                                                           

DATE OF HEARING -22.06.2018, DATE OF ORDER -03.07.2018

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT- Brief facts of the case is that the Complaint is caterer by profession who was engaged by the O.P to provide Catering services to the Hostel Of RSETI, Deogarh managed by the O.Ps and deposited Rs 10,000/- as Term Deposit with the Bank of The O.P-2.The Complainant has worked from dt. 10.02.2016 to dt.02.06.2016. During the Course of his service the O.P-1 forced him to take leave for six months due to some organizational matters and directed to resume the same after leave. The Complainant unwillingly did the same and went on leave. After he returns the O.Ps did not allow him to resume in his services rather engaged another person in his place stating the reason that, the Complainant in spite of several warning, supplied sub-standard food and violated the terms and conditions in the agreement and harassed him in various ways. But the O.Ps denying all the allegations made against them and complained of supply of sub-standard food (Meals & Tiffin) by the complainant for which they have to face problems and their name and fame was hampering.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION-

  1. Whether the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumer ?,
  2.  Whether the O.Ps has committed any deficiency in services?

From the above discussion and material available on records we found that the Complainant is a Consumer of the O.Ps as he has deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the Bank of O.P-2 in shape of security amount for his appointment under the O.Ps.

 

Here the ground for taking leave by the Complainant is quite uncertain which is neither disclosed by the Complainant nor by the O.Ps and the intension behind granting leave for six months without any alternative or substitute by the O.Ps is quite suspicious. Again questions arises that if the O.P-1 compelled him to take leave for six months, then when he opted to resume his services on dtd. 01.01.2017 and 09.04.2017, why the O.p-1 opposed to do so? As per the agreement made between the Complainant and the O.P in the Para-5, it has been mentioned that the Director may at any time taste the food/dish before being served to the trainees and if he feels necessary, he may report on the taste/quality of the food served and deduct price from the caterer but no such adverse report has been filed to support his case to strengthen his defence. Again according to Para-15 of the agreement a prior notice may be served to the Caterer in the event of supply of sub-standard food and if regular carelessness observed then the O.P may terminate the appointment without any prior notice. But here it can be seen that the Complainant has been terminated without serving notice. Here the O.P-s could have served prior notice at the first instance of supplying food of lower quality. So it can be easily inferred that the O.Ps has acted beyond the agreement made between them and the Complainant harassed by the O.Ps which gave rise to financial hurdles. Again the complaint register does not contain any certificate by the authority on the pages contained in the register and devoid of any sign or seal of the office and gives rise to a doubt on the genuineness of the document and supposed to be created  to defend  the O.Ps in the case. Hence the O.Ps have Committed Deficiency in service u/s-2(1)(g) of C.P Act-1986. 

 

                                      ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed and the O.Ps are directed to refund the security amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days of receiving this order. Further the O.Ps are jointly & severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/ towards compensation, Rs. 2,000/-towards mental agony & pain and Rs. 1,000/-towards cost of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days of receiving this order, failing which the O.Ps shall pay 9% interest on the above amount till the day of actual payment to the Complainant.

Office is directed to supply free copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

Order is pronounced in the open Court today i.e 3rd day of July 2018 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

I agree I agree

 

MEMBER (W)                                    MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

Dictated & Corrected by me

   

 PRESIDENT  

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Jayanti Pradhan]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Arati Das]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.