West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/36/2021

Dilip Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Suri Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Subrata Mukhapaddhay

19 May 2023

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder-President-in-Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant/petitioner, Sri Dilip Das aged about 43 years, permanent resident of Suri Mallickguna Para, P.O. and P.S. Suri, District- Birbhum who was an employee under OP No. 1. He was engaged by OP No. 2 since 2007 which was his only source of livelihood.

            It is the further case of the complainant that from the month of July, 2020 the Ops without any intimation or information, suddenly gave leave to his complainant without any pay and thereafter the complainant came to know that he has been dismissed form his service.

            It is the next case of the complainant that Ops did not pay any Gratuity amount to the complainant. Complainant requested several times to the Ops but the Ops turned a deaf ear to the request of the complainant.

            Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this case before this Commission for proper relief and prays for:

1. To pass an order directing the O.P.s to give the Gratuity amount immediately to this complainant along with the interest over the same till realization;
2. To pass an order directing the O.P.s to reemploy the complainant to the Office of O.P. No. 1 as he was with immediate effect;
3.   To pass an order directing the OP to pay Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty thousand) for physical and mental harassment caused by the OP
4.  Any other relief/reliefs as the Court think fit and proper.

It appears from the case record that none appears from OP sides before this District Commission

 

 

 

after receiving the notice. OP members have not taken any steps. No written version has yet been filed by the OP members. As a result, this Commission directed for hearing of the instant case exparte against both the OP members vide order No. 10 dated 03/03/2022.

            Complainant’s side submitted evidence-in-chief and written notes on argument (W/N/A). Some documents have also been filed by the complainant himself and after compare with original documents. Originals were returned to the complainant. Thereafter, Ld. Advocate for the complainant made oral argument in support of his case.

          Points for determination/Issues/

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 Decision with reasons

            All these four issues are taken up together for convenience of discussion and brevity.       

We find that in an identical case i.e. in Kondareddygari Adinarayanareddy Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and others, Revision Petition No. 71 of 2013, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dismissed the complaint by its order dated 20 July, 2022 and stated in point No. 9(iii) as:

“The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before the District Commission, as the terminal benefits like provident fund (bank’s contribution) and gratuity not being granted on dismissal from service is the subject-matter of the competent services tribunal or civil court. The complaint is returned un-adjudicated, the merits or the nature of the facts remain unexamined by the consumer protection fora. The complainant shall be at liberty to approach the competent services tribunal or civil court to seek remedy as per the law. Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963 shall be relevant in respect of the period spent in litigation before the consumer protection fora.”

            Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble NCDRC, in this case this Commission is of the view that the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before this District Commission. Moreover the Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case. The complainant/petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the competent services tribunal or Civil Court to seek remedy as per law. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall be relevant in respect of the period spent in litigation before this District Commission.

           

 

 

 

 

The case is properly stamped.

            The points are decided accordingly.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant Case No. CC/36/2021 be and same is dismissed without cost.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.