DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO. 38 OF 2022
Date of Filing : 23.08.2022
Date of Order : 31.01.2023
Sri Indramani Bisoi,
S/o Late Chakradhar Bisoi,
At- Master Pada, Phulbani,
PS-Phulbani Town,
District-Kandhamal …………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
The Managing Director,
Paribahan Bhawan
OSRTC, Bhubaneswar …………………….. Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President.
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi - Member.
For the Complainant: Self
For OP : Mr. Susanta Kumar Mohanty &Ashok Behera…Advocates
JUDGEMENT
Mr. Sudhakar Senapothi, Member
Complainant Indramani Bisoi has filed this case U/S 35 of CP Act of 2019 alleging deficiency in service and harassment on the part of the opposite party for non-payment of arrear bills from 1975 till the date of his retirement and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Party to clear the arrear dues from 1975 till the date of retirement with compound interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of approval till it is paid to him and a sum of Rs. 2, 00000/- towards harassment, Rs. 3,00000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs. 50000/- towards cost of litigation.
- Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is working as helper in OSRTC department since 1965. His services were regularized in the year 1974 and he was engaged in permanent cadre of department and took VRS in the year 2001. In spite of regularization in service, in the year 1974, he has not received his arrear dues in spite of repeated approaches and even though he is entitled to get all the benefits of regular employee, he has been devoid of benefits for which he has lodged several complaints and as his grievance was not redressed, he has filed this complaint before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
- After receipt of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through his advocate Mr. S.K.Mohanty and A.Behera on 28.09.2022. The Opposite Party preferred not to file any written statements. One Abhishek Samantaray, Assistant Manager, OSRTC, Phulbani filed a written statement on behalf of the opposite party. On perusal of record, it is seen that the Assistant Manager, OSRTC, Phulbani is not a party to the case nor he has obtained the power of attorney from the Opposite Party nor he has been authorized in any manner to file the written statement on his behalf. Since the written statement has been filed by an unauthorized person/stranger, the written statement is not accepted and stance rejected.
- The complainant in support of this case has filed the copy of his Service Book. The Opposite Party has not filed a single document in his defense.
- The first and foremost relating to this case is whether the case is maintainable before this Commission or not. Bare perusal of the complaint petition goes to show that the relief sought for are of two natures. The first relief relates to deficiency of service, callousness attitude of the authority and harassment and the second part relates to issue of direction to the Opposite Party to pay his arrear and pensioner benefits. This Commission has the jurisdiction to sit over the allegation of deficiency in service and harassment caused to a consumer and the second part is not maintainable before this commission.
- It is settled principle of law that the payment made to the Government Servants is not gratuitous but is being paid to render certain services from time to time as per the instruction of the Government. I am fortified by the decision of Hon’ble State Commission, Odisha in the case of J.K.Samal Vrs. State of Odisha reported in 1992 Vol.3 C.P. Act Page-692 wherein the Hon’ble State Commission has held that a person is a beneficiary of the services which is to be extended by a Government Service. Similarly, The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case of Ghajiabad Development Authority Vrs. Balbir Singh has clearly ruled that misfeasance of public office by Government and statutory authority come under the purview of CP Act (2004 CJD Vol.2, Page-88). So in view of the above decision, it is very much clear that the complainant being a beneficiary is a consumer and he has got every right to approach this commission for making allegation against deficiency in service and harassment meted out to him.
- It is clear from the documents and record that his services have been regularized in the year n1974 and he has taken VRS in the year 2001. Since the Opposite Party is sitting over the matter since then, it gives rise to continue cause of action. The petitioner is an old man of 71 years and he has been running from pillar to post to get his statutory dues and the opposite party being the authority has paid deaf ear over the years which amounts to deficiency in service and making him run from pillar to post is a clean case of harassment to a low paid employee. As a case of deficiency in service coupled with harassment is made out against the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and harassment sustained by him and hence the order.
O R D E R
The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party in part. The OP is made liable for cause deficiency in service and harassment to the petitioner. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 300000/-(Three lakhs) as compensation to the complainant towards deficiency in service and harassment and a sum of Rs. 25000/- towards the cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of order failing which it will carry interest @ 12% per annum.
Computerized & corrected by me.
I Agree
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 31st day of January 2023 in the presence of the parties.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
