DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 15th day of February, 2019
C.D Case No. 88 of 2016
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Sri Maheswar Sahoo
S/o: Kalandi Sahoo,
At: Kaligadia,
Po: Sarasada,
Ps: Bhandaripokhari,
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The District Labour Officer, Bhadrak
At: Bonth Chhak,
Po: Bhadrak,
Ps: Bhadrak (T),
Dist: Bhadrak
2. The Collector, Bhadrak
At/Po/Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Mr. J. B. Agasti, Adv & Associates
Counsel For the OP No. 1: Self
Counsel For the OP No. 2: Mr. B. K. Mohanty, Govt. Pleader
Date of hearing: 04.04.2018
Date of order: 15.02.2019
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of a complaint petition filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service.
The facts of the complaint are that the deceased father of the complainant was a daily labourer earning his lively hood and maintaining his family from daily earning as a labourer. In order to get a labour card, the deceased father of the complainant applied to registering authority (District Labour Officer) on payment of required fees of Rs 20/- under the provision of Section- 12 of the building and other construction workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 for issue of Labour Card. The application issue of labour card made on dt. which under official scrutiny and processing, the father of the complainant passed away on 09.06.2015 in S.C.B Medical College and Hospital Cuttack as he was under treatment for his suffering from cancer. After sad demise of his father, the complainant requested the issue the labour card of his father which was refused by OP No. 1 and subsequently complainant also approached/requested to OP No. 2. That, the complainant has also given another complained on dt. 17.11.2014 that the said vehicle is not running smoothly due to default of the said vehicle engaged and no water service is supply properly as per the terms and conditions. Now due to machinery defect the said vehicle is not running smoothly and the said vehicle is standing in front of the complainant’s house. So the complainant has sent a legal notice on dt. 16.02.2106 for return the excess amount and to repair the said Auto Rickshaw but the OP No. 2 remained silent. So again the complainant approached the OP No. 1 and 2 on dt. to return the said Rs 3,680/- to the complainant. But the O.Ps did not listen the request of the complainant. So having no alternative way the complainant has filed this dispute case before this Forum for getting relief.
Both the O.Ps objected points of allegations and contested the case. OP No. 1 in submitting written version has stated that there is no cause of action in the entire complaint and the complainant is also coming within the meaning of consumer as has been expressly described in the C.P Act. Further it also raised by OP No. 1 that the complainant has not approached the Forum or has not come to the Forum in clean hands by suppressing the facts. It is also an admitted fact that the father of the complainant had applied to the registering authority for enrolling his name in the recognized labor register and issue of labor card which was under process and the card was prepared on 24.07.2016 but the applicant was died on 07.06.2015. This shows that the complainant has suppressed the actual death of his father for more than year with ulterior motive without any truth to deceive the Govt. authority. Hence the complaint does not bear any merit and liable to be dismissed.
OP No. 2 challenged the maintainability of the case in stating that there is no cause of action and the complainant is not a consumer within the definition as described U/s 2 of C.P Act. Secondly OP No. 2 has admitted submission of application by the father of the complainant and after following due procedure, the card was prepared on 24.07.2016. But one year before preparation of the labor card the father of the complainant passed away on 07.06.2015 which was neither intimated to the registering authority nor to the OP No. 2. Suppression of such facts by the complainant was intentional to get the labor card in a fraudulent manner. Hence the case filed by the complainant be dismissed due to devoid of merit.
ORSERVATION
On perusal of complaint filed by the complainant, written version of O.Ps, material evidence on record, heard both the parties on the law points and observed as follows.
According to the submission of O.Ps the complainant is not a consumer as he has neither paid any amount to avail goods and services from the Govt. but as per allegation of complainant, his father has paid Rs 20/- to the registering authority for incorporation of his name in labor register of the District and issue of labor card. But the O.Ps are of opinion that the amount is required to be paid by the applicants for preparation of labor card if the applicant complies basic requirements as prescribed in the relevant Act. The registering authority adopted due procedure for preparation of the labor card and enrolled the name of the applicant in labor register on dt. 24.07.2016 that is after expiry of one year of the death of the father of the complainant or the applicant. Hence the complainant at the time of approaching the registering authority to handover the labor card of his father to him as if he was awaiting for more than a year to have/grab the card of his deceased father which is unfair and bad in law. Finally it is observed that the case is not maintainable in this Forum in the present form and is not a consumer within the meaning of CP Act. Therefore the complaint itself is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Hence it is ordered;
- ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed and in the circumstances without cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 15th February, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
