Date of filing:- 19/11/2014.
Date of Order:- 25/08/2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 34 of 2014.
Gadadhar Rath, S/o late Dambarudhar Rath, aged about 62(sixty two) years, resident of Bargarh, Ward No.09(Nine) Veer Surendra Sai Nagar, (Bandutikira) Po/Ps/Dist- Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
The Executive Officer, Bargarh Municipality, At/Po/Ps/Dist- Bargarh.
District Collector, Bargarh, At/Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
.... .... .... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant:- Sri. P.R. Nag with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties :- Sri M.P. Gartia, Addl. Govt. Pleader, Bargarh.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... I/c President.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt. 25/08/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri P.K. Dash, Member .
The Complaint alleges deficiency in service enumerated under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and the brief facts of the complaint is as follows:-
The petitioner was working under the Bargarh Municipality as Night Watcher on N.M.R. basis from 01/01/1981 to Dt.30/01/2013 and retired on Dt.31/01/2013. But the petitioner was disengaged from the post of Night Watcher from Dt.29/10/2005 to Dt.02/05/2006 by the Opposite Party No.1(one).
The Complaint contends that the wages for the disengaged period of six months amounting to Rs.9,000/-(Rupees nine thousand)only and also the government holiday wages for twenty eight days amounting to Rs.1,400/-(Rupees one thousand four hundred)only in total Rs.10,400/-(Rupees ten thousand four hundred)only has not been paid to him by the Bargarh Municipality and in that respect the Complainant has made representations/applications and also grievance petition on Dt.03/03/2014 to the Opposite Party No.1(one) on different dates to release the said amount. As the Opposite Party No.1(one) remained silent over the matter. The Complainant served Pleader Notice to release the said amount but the Opposite Party No.1(one) neither replied the pleader notice nor took any step to release the money in favour of the Complainant, hence the complaint.
Further the Complaint contends that the petitioner had also filed petition before the Dist. Labour Officer, Bargarh in this matter and the D.L.O, Bargarh had also suggested to settle claim the matter by making payment of the dues. Again Bargarh Municipality Council on Dt.11/11/2010 has also resolved to make payment of the outstanding dues to the Complainant.
For the in action of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant alleges deficiency in service and seeks the redressal of the Forum to direct the Opposite Parties to release the out standing dues along with up-to-date interest and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only and loss of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only to the Complainant.
The Complainant in support of his contention relied upon the following documents.
Petition Dt.04/08/2010 to the D.L.O., Bargarh by the Complainant.
Petition Dt.15/09/2010 to the D.L.O., Bargarh by the Complainant.
Petition Dt.18/02/2013 to the Executive Officer, Bargarh Municipality by the Complainant.
Petition to the Executive Officer, Bargarh Municipality Dt.22/06/2012 by the Complainant.
Information letter of the D.L.O.-Cum-Consolidation Officer, Bargarh vide memo No.4125(2) Dt.24/11/2010.
Petition Dt.07/03/2010 to the D.L.O., Bargarh by the Complainant.
Petition Dt.03/03/2014 to the Additional District Magistrate, Bargarh by the Complainant.
Resolution Dt.11/11/2012 passed by the Bargarh Municipality Council, Bargarh.
Pleader Notice Dt.23/04/2014 along with postal receipt and Acknowledgment card.
Postal Order.
Paper cutting News published in daily Odia News Paper “SAMBAD” on Dt.27/03/2013.
Being noticed the Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and filed their version through their legal counsel denying all the allegations of the Complainant.
The Opposite Parties in their version contend that the complaint is basically against the Opposite Party No.1(one) a local-self Government but Opposite Party No.2(two) i.e. The state of Odisha is not a necessary party to this case.
Further the version contend that as per the provision of law in the Act, there is no deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties U/s-2(1)(g) for which the Complainant is not a Consumer U/s-2(1)(d) of the Act and this Forum lacks jurisdiction to allow this claim of the Complainant. The Complainant has remedy to take shelter before the Civil Court.
Again the version contend that the subject matter of this case is also the matter of District Labour Officer, Bargarh which comes under the payment of wages Act and it is in derogation of the provision of the other law i.e. Provision of payment of wages Act. It is also not admitted in the version that the District Labour Officer has directed the Municipality to settle the matter and Bargarh Municipality has resolved to make payment to the Petitioner and also Bargarh Municipality has knowingly, intentionally neglected the Petitioner in payment of dues and provision of 80 C.P.C. is not applicable under Municipality Act.
The Opposite Parties in their version has denied the claim of the Petitioner for any compensation against the Opposite Parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Gone through the case record perused the documents, pleadings of the parties, heard argument, and the Forum feels the following issues to be decided.
Is the Complainant a Consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 ?
Whether the documents filed by the Complainant are sufficient for a summary trail under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and to get relief in a consumer dispute ?
What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
Answering issue No.1(one) under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986, the term “consideration” has not been defined in this Act but it must be taken as defined in Contract Act-1872. Another aspect, the term “service” has variety of meaning. It may mean any benefit or any act resulting in promoting interest or happiness. It may be contractual, professional, public, private, domestic, legal, statutory etc. The concept of service thus is very wide. It should be under stood in the context in which it means and the context in which it was been used. Here in the present case it is a contract for service between the Complainant and Opposite Parties and the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Parties in the light of wide connotations of the terms and provision in the Act.
In answering the issue No.2(two), the Complainant to prove his case ought to have file the following documents and evidence before the forum.
Initial engagement letter Dt.01/01/1981 issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in favour of the Complainant.
Disengagement Letter Memo No.2027(4) Dt.29/10/2015.
Re engagement Letter Memo No.806(4) Dt.02/05/2006.
The order and settlement of dispute in the conciliation proceeding U/s 12 of Industrial Dispute Act-1947 by the Dist Labour officer Bargarh.
If any proceeding is subjudiced before the Labour Court between the same parties and for the same matter in issue.
More over the Complainant has not also bring any oral evidence summoning and procuring through the redressal Forum to prove his case.
In absence of the the documents and evidence described above, it is not proved in any manner the nature of appointment of the Complainant, reason for disengagement and also subsistence of any proceeding before other Court of law between the same parties in the same case.
The documents filed by the Complainant, simply reveals that he was working under the Opposite Party No.1(one) as N.M.R. employee and his wages for the disengagement period from Dt.29/10/2005 to 02/05/2006 from the Opposite Party No.1(one), he has opted to file petition before the Dist. Labour Officer, Bargarh and the D.L.O. Bargarh vide its summon Dt.24/11/2010 has required the attendance of the Complainant Sri Gadadhar Ratha, as well as the Opposite Party No. 1(one) i.e. the Executive Officer, Bargarh Muncipality, Bargarh for conciliation proceeding U/s 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act-1947.
The Complainant has not come with clean hand for his redressal before the Forum under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. He has screened the vital facts and truth which could have been deciding factors for better and proper adjudication of the case in its proper prospects. This fact has been clearly reveals in cited decision between Sagli Ram Vrs General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd in II (1994) CPJ 444 and in 1994 (1) CPR 434.
To attract the provision of Sec. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Complainant has to bring a case not in derogation of the other law. Here in this case as the Complainant has opted to reconcile the matter before the D.L.O. Bargarh, then it is not conclusively reveals as to its latter proceeding and subjudicement of matter for the same cause of action between the same party before the Labour Forums which is also a competent Forum to adjudicate the matter.
More over in a summary trial under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the sets of documents filed by the Complainant in this case is not sufficient enough to bring home the allegation of deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties in any manner. Hence this issue answered above.
In answering the issue No.3(three), delving deep in to the matter, owing to the evidence at hand and provision of law in Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Forum comes to a conclusion that the Complainant is not entitle for any relief before the Forum and the parties are at liberty to fight their causes before the proper court of law.
Hence the Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
I agree,
( Smt.Anjali Behera )
M e m b e r
I/C President.
