Orissa

Rayagada

CC/248/2015

Ranjita Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Security & Labour Service, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

         

                                             C.C. Case  No. 248/2015.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Smt. Ch.  Nirmala Kumari Raju, LLB,                    Member

Ms.Ranjita Sahu, D/o Sri Rajendra Sahu, Resident of Padmapur, Po/Ps Padmapur, Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                   …..…..Complainan

                                                                    Vrs

1. Executive Chief, M/s Winner Security & Labour Services, Rayagada.
2. Project Director, D.R.D.A, Rayagada.                              …..……Opp.Parties

Counsel for :

The Complainant:  In Person

The Opp.Party 1 & 2 :  Self

                                                                         JUDGMENT

 

                        The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant is an educated unemployed youth  and he was in search of job .The government has announced to appoint DEO in every block and the O.p 2 has to appoint them and the O.p 2 has asked the O.P 1  to provide man power to the said scheme and the O.P No.1 being a service provider  and as per the agreement between O.P 1 & 2  the complainant  and others have approached the O.p 1 for the purpose  and the O.p 2 has issued appointment order to each  selected persons including the complainant vide order No.2621 dt.19.07.2014. The complainant has joined  the said assignment in the month of July,2014  and working till today but the remuneration as promised by the O.P 1 was not paid till today. The  O.P 1 has promised to pay a monthly salary of Rs.5,200/-  to the complainant with extra perks for overtime and holiday working etc. but they have not provided anything like this . The complainant is entitled to get his remuneration from Juluy,2014 to  till date with over time charges. Hence, prayed  to direct the O.P 1 & 2  to release the unpaid remuneration till today and  for mental agony and financial loss  an additional compensation be awarded  along with cost of litigation and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Hence, this complaint.

                        On being noticed, the O.p  No.1 appeared  but he has not filed written version  and he has only filed  a letter issued to the  Project Director, Rayagada. The Opp.Party No.2 – Project Director, DRDA  neither appeared and filed regarding the part payment of amount two lakhs vide letter No.2782/15 dt.1.8.15 and letter No.224/15 dt.24.6.15 but  not  filed written version as such the O.Ps were set exparte.  In the said letter  the Opp.Party No. 1 has  stated that  he has supplied 11 Nos. of DEOs for engagement in 11 blocks of the district  and as per the agreement  not releasing the funds  against the monthly bills  in spite of various correspondences.  It is also stated that  the total bill amount comes to Rs.4,38,461/- plus Rs.2,07,692/-  and out of the said amount only Rs.3,67,503/- only  have been paid by the O.P 2  in three installments though the DEOs have worked beyond  the agreement period and due to not receipt of payment from the O.p 2 the O.p 1 was unable to pay the  salaries of the DEOs in time.  

                        The points for determination before us is as follows :-

1.             Whether the complainant is a “Consumer” & whether the petition is          maintainable under C.P.Act ?
2.             What relief the complainant is entitled to ?

Issue No.1

                        On the other hand, the complainant argued that as the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation and as an additional remedy available to the consumer, as such as per Section 3 of the C.P.Act the complaint petition is maintainable in the consumer forum. Sec.3 of the C.P.Act provides additional remedies in addition to the remedies provided under the   other acts and it is not derogation of any provisions of any law. The Consumer Forum has therefore jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of deficiency of services in the given facts  especially when compensation sought was not furnished. Yet there is no bar to approach the District Consumer Forum for deficiency of services as  the complainant is paying  tax to the government authorities regularly and the  O.ps are getting their salaries from the exchequers of the government. Hence, the case of the complainant would fall within the scope and ambit of Sec.2(d)(i)(g) of the C.P.Act. which provides that service means service of any description which s made available to potential users and the complainant is a consumer.

                        In the case of Secretary, Tirumurugan Co-operative  Agricultural Credit Society Vrs. M.Lalitha and Others reported in (2004) 1 Section-305 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 11 & 12  has held that having due regard to the Scheme of C.P.Act and the purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumer better, its provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully to give meaning to additional extended jurisdiction particularly when Section 3  seeks to provide remedy under the acts in addition to other remedies provided under other acts unless there is clear bar.

                         Hence, the complainant is a “Consumer” coming under the C.P.Act.

Issue No.2

                        During the course of hearing we heard from the parties at length and perused the complaint petition and letter filed by the O.p 1 and also gone through the arguments diligently. Since the Project Director, DRDA, Rayagada -O.P 2  did not file written version,  clear picture did not come out regarding the payment  to the candidate deployed by them.  The Opp.Party No.1 has also not filed written version, however he has filed a letter vide letter No.459 dt.15.09.15 addressed to the O.p 2 wherein the O.P No.1 has clearly mentioned regarding the non payment of monthly remuneration by the O.P 2  and as such the O.p 1 failed to pay to the candidates and it is also mentioned in the said letter  that  the  total bill amount comes to Rs.4,38,461/- plus Rs.2,07,692/-  and out of the said amount Rs.3,67,503/- only  have been paid by the O.P 2  in three installments  and due to not receipt of payment from the O.p 2 the O.p 1 was unable to pay the  salaries of the DEOs in time. From the above admission of the O.P 2  it became clear that the candidates deployed by the O.p 1 have not received their monthly remunerations due to negligence of  the O.P 2  and the O.P 2 being  a responsible office of the government did not give any importance to the notice of a judicial forum and even did not feel it necessary to appear and file  any reply. The above actions of the O.p 2 clearly shows their  callous attitude towards the service to the public as well as to the nation for which the innocents are suffering for their negligence and incapability act. They have no rights to play  with the life of the innocents who are taking pain to earn their livelihood  for a scanty remuneration.

                        Since the Opp.Party 2 has not filed any written version we proceeded the  matter exparte and   believed the contentions of the complainant and the admission of the O.p 1 in the letter filed by the Opp.Party No.1 and the  Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the complainant and  passed order accordingly.

                                                          ORDER

            The O.P 2 – Project Director, DRDA, Rayagada is directed to  release the total outstanding bill amount of the Opp. Party No.1-Winner Security & Labour Services, Rayagada  to be paid to the complainant .The O.P. 2 is farther directed to  pay monetary compensation of Rs.1,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.500/-  for  mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant  within thirty days of receipt of this order, failing which the Opp. party No.2 is  liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the  above awarded amount .   

Pronounced in open forum today on this  4^th day of  February,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

Send  the copy of order to the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                                                                           President

Documents filed by the parties:

By the Complainant: Nil

By the Opp.parties: Nil

                                                                                                                        President