Orissa

Rayagada

CC/130/2015

Smt. Saraswati Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Rajendra Kumar Senapati

15 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.130 / 2015.                                 Date.   12     .     10  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Smt. Saraswati  Behera, W/O: Sri Rama Chandra Behera, Kasturi Nagar,   Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                                                        …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The    Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Rayagada.

2. The Branch Manager,  National Insurance Company Ltd, Jeypore.

3.The Sr. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, Regional office, IDCO Tower, Janpath, Bhubaneswar-751  001.

4. The Chief General Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, Regional office, IDCO tower, Janpath, Bhubaneswar- 751 001.                                  .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri R.K.Senapati, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps:- Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada.

 

                                                            JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non payment Rs. 1,70,000/-(approximately) towards  commission  for the vehicles insured through her inter alia was working as agent under the O.P.   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps  put in their appearance and filed joint written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

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

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

In the present case in hand   undisputedly  the O.Ps were employer of the complainant and the complainant  was  employee  working   under  the O.P. as agent.  Further  non receipt of commission from the  O.Ps  by the complainant   are   service matter.

 

On perusal of the written version it is revealed that the O.Ps.  vehemently argued  that the case is not maintainable  preliminary under the C.P. act, 1986.

            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”.

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’.

By  no   stretch of   imagination an Agent  can raise  any   dispute  regarding his service condition or for payment of  commission  or any   of  his service benefits   before any of the forum  under the Act. The Agent   does not fall under the    definition of a “Consumer” as defined under section 2(i)(d) (ii) of the C.P. Act.  Such commission  is entitled to claim his service benefits   strictly in accordance with her service  conditions and regulations or statutory rules  framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any  her grievance, may be the  Civil court or High Court but certainly   not a consumer  forum under the Consumer Protection Act,1986”.     

On perusal of the  complaint petition this  forum observed  that the matters relating  to non payment of commission  amount by the O.Ps to the complainant  will not comes under the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986.  Where there is a special remedy is available to the parties provided by the legislature hence  this  forum did not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.  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.

This forum relied citation of similar type of  case  the Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission, Cuttack  in  First Appeal No. 727 of 2009  on Dtd. 16.9.2009  in the case of  LIC of India  Vrs. Tirupati Panda, Rayagada  where in observed  “That the case of the complainant  as it was put forth is a simple service matter  and remuneration in lieu   thereof. This dispute can not be entertained  by the Consumer Forum and the Consumer Forum can not pass order  directing  any organization   to make payment  of commission  to the  agent/complainant.  

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”.

In view of the above discussion and citation  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 resultant  the complaint petition stands  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.

            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  held  as  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.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this           12  th          Day of   October,  2018.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President