Orissa

Rayagada

CC/202/2015

Madhusmita Chaulsing - Complainant(s)

Versus

The National Skills Development Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Self

18 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 202 / 2015.                                           Date.     18    .  4     . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       Preident.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                                                       Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                                              Member.

 

Madhusmita Chausing, D/O: Late Laxman Choulsing, AT: Raniguda Farm,      Po/Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                                                  …. Complainant.

Versus.

1. The Manager, National Skills Development Corporation, Block-A, Charion Collection, Quatab Hotel,  Saheed Jatsing Marg, New Delhi- 110016.
2. Sri Sanjay Kumar Patra,  S/O: K.C.Patra, Franchisee of  O.P.No. 1, At: First line, Co-operative colony, Rayagada.
3. The CENTEM, Legal & Secreterial Centum learning  Ltd., 127, Neela Gagan, Mandi Road,  Sultanpuri, Mehruli, New Delhi-110030.
4. Sri Sunil Sing Kapat, C/O: Bharati Air Tel house, Infocity, Bhubaneswar, Co-ordinator of O.P. No.1.                           ……...Opp.Parties

For the Complainant:-Self..

For the O.P No.1.  :-  Self.

For the O.P. No.2,  & 4 :- Set exparte.

For the O.P. No.3:- Sri  S. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, Rayagada.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non receipt of incentive  amount and certificate for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed the O.P No.1 & 3  appeared and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No.1 & 3  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.P No.1 & 3  . Hence the O.P. No.1 & 3 prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed  the O.P No. 2,  & 4   neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  20 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No. 2 & 4.  Observing lapses of around 3 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No. 2 & 4. The action of the O.P No. 2 & 4    are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No. 2 & 4   are set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

Heard arguments from the    O.Ps    and from 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 & vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

Undisputedly the complainant had taken  training for the course of Showroom Hostess Level 3 conducted  by  M/S. Upasana Educational Trust at Rayagada(Odisha). Accordingly the O.Ps  had   credited  the monetary reward  a sum of  Rs.10,000/-  in the complainant’s S.B. account  bearing No. 544210110010170 maintained with the Bank of India, New Colony, Po/Dist: Rayagada branch having IFCI code No. BKID0005442  which the O.P. No.1 clearly mentioned in their  written version  para-v. Further the  O.P. No.1 submitted that  once the complainant  had received the monetary reward for one  certification, she is not entitled to any further payment of any monetary  reward  in terms of the provision of the scheme.

The O.P. No.1  in para-3 para  wise written version   clearly denied   that the complainant  has passed the course  ‘Retail Sales Associate’ (i) and has undertaken the course of “Store Operations Assistant Level-1” which the complainant  has not  counter and  to substantiate  any  proof  regarding  the  above  allegation.

The O.P. No.1  in para-4 para  wise written version   clearly denied   that the O.P. No.1 had made to understand that she will be given a suitable appointment as well as incentry of Rs.1,500/- to be increased  later till she got an order to employment/engagement. To counter  the above allegation the complainant has not filed any  proof of document  to substantiate the  same.

The O.P. No.1  in para-6 para  wise written version   clearly denied   that the  O.P. No.1 was guaranteed any incentry as claimed   by the complainant  as she is an educated person. In view of this, she would have been aware of the provisions of the scheme which manifestly provide  that  any candidate is entitled to the monetary reward only once  under  the scheme and it can not so happen that one candidate enrolls for ten different courses and try and make the Scheme and money making business.  It is a scheme initiated by the Govt. of India to instill and  promote skill development amongst the youth. The complainant having already received the monetary reward for one of the course where she had got the certification, there was no occasion for her to get any more monetary reward under the scheme.

Further  under the scheme it was no where mandatory to offer employment to the trainees rather it  was a skill/employability enhancement initiative of  Government of India. To substantiate the same the complainant has not filed any supporting  paper  in support of her case.

FINDINGS.

The O.Ps  vehemently  contended in their written version  that the case is not maintainable before the  forum under the C.P.Act, 1986.

Now  the issues to be determined by this forum are:-

          Whether this forum  has   jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the C.P. Act, 1986  ?

While addressing  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  “Consumer forum  can not adjudicate  disputes without  addressing to the basic issues”.  In  another decision  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”

At this stage, it is appropriate to quote Section  2(1)(d) of C.P. Act,  which reads as follows:-

            “(d)”Consumer” means any person who-

1. Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any  system of deferred payment   and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys   such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly  promised , or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly  promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails  of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and  partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed  of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”

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’.           

On perusal of the  complaint petition this  forum observed  that the matters relating to the non receipt of incentive  amount that  will not come under the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986  Where there is a special remedy is available to the parties   provided by the legislature to the complainant  the forum did not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction illegally  to adjudicate the matter(Supra).  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.

            It is  suffice  to say  here that The C.P. Act does not provide for application of evidence Act or CPC. A consumer  dispute is to be  decided on the yard stick of reasonable probabilities  on the basis of facts brought  on record  by the parties  (GeetaJethani  Vrs. Air Port authority of India and others 2004  CPJ  1048 (N.C).  The  parties  are at their liberty  to agitate  their grievance before the appropriate court of law and not before this forum  being  nullified the grievances of the complainant. 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  disposed of.

           

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this                18 ^th.   Day of   April,  2018.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President