DATE OF FILING: 09.01.2017

               DATE OF DISPOSAL: 04.05.2018

Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.   

               The complainant   Kumuda Ranjan Panigrahi  has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party    ( in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his   grievance before this Forum.  

               2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he was allowed to perform duty on Berhampur-Nawarangpur (Non A/C DLX) service in agreement No. 9186 dated 01.08.2014 vide sl. No. (IV) of the said agreement dated 01.08.2014 the complainant deposited Rs.25,000/- only on 01.08.2014 vide Bank Draft No. 005987 dated 20.06.2014 against which Misc. receipt was issued in Book No. 5140 receipt No. 91 dated 01.08.2014. After closure of the agreement period, the complainant requested the O.P. to refund the money deposited in representation dated 08.12.2014. The O.P. received the petition but there is neither any response nor refund of the money till date. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to refund of Rs.25,000/-, compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards harassment and mental agony, and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- in the best interest of justice.

               3. Mr. K.P.Pattnaik, Advocate filed Vakalatanama on behalf of Opposite Party alongwith petition for time dated 25.04.2017. Thereafter he neither appeared nor filed written version, hence the O.P. is set exparte on dated 06.07.2017.

               4. To substantiate his case the complainant has filed documents as per list, evidence on affidavit alongwith written notes of argument. Heard the argument from the complainant’s advocate. It reveals from the record that the complainant had deposited Rs.25,000/- towards refundable advance as per the agreement. Hence, we presumed that the refundable advance is nothing but security deposit.  Law is well settled that security deposit is not a payment of consideration for rendering service and so there can be no question of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. while not refunding the security money deposited by him as has been held by the National CDR Commission, New Delhi in M/s Utkal Asbestos Ltd versus N.Raghab Reddy 1995 (1) Current Consumer Cases 332 (NC).

               5. On foregoing discussion, it is crystal clear that the complaint does not come under the preview of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, we dismissed the complaint against the O.P. without cost.  

                           The order is pronounced on this day of 4th May 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of