State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Managing Director, vs Sri Boregowda on 28 July, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1782/2022 ( Date of Filing : 30 Aug 2022 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 02/06/2022 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/91/2020 of District Mandya) 1. The Managing Director, Mysore Sugar Company Limited, No.4, d, No.4, Building, J.C.Road, Bengaluru. 2. The General Manager, Mysore Sugar Company Limited, Mandya. 3. The Chief Materials Manager, Mysore Sugar Company Limited, Mandya. 4. The Chief Financial Officer, Mysore Sugar Company Limited, Mandya. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Boregowda S/o Late Kalaiah.B.M., Aged about 57 years, R/a No. 1823, 4th Cross, Sugartown Extension, Mandya City. 2. The principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka Department of Commerce And Industries, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru. 3. The Commissioner for Cane Development and Director of Sugar, Karnataka Housing Board Building, CComplex, F Block, 5th Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bengaluru. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 28 Jul 2023 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2023 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NO. 1782/2022 1. The Managing Director, Mysore Sugar Company Limited, No.4,d, No.4, Building, J.C.Road, Bengaluru. ...Appellant/s 2. The General Manager, Mysore Sugar Company Limited, Mandya. 3. The Chief Materials Manager, Mysore Sugar Company Limited, Mandya. 4. The Chief Financial Officer, Mysore Sugar Company Limited, Mandya. (Represented by Sri.Ramesh.K.Chilapur, Advocate) V/s 1. Sri Boregowda, S/o Late Kalaiah.B.M., Aged about 57 years, R/a No.1823, 4th Cross, Sugartown Extension, Mandya City. ...Respondent/s 2. The Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Department of Commerce and Industries, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru. 3. The Commissioner for Cane, Development and Director of Sugar, Karnataka Housing Board Building, C-Complex, "F" Block, 5th Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bengaluru. O R D E R
BY SMT. SUNITA .C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite party being aggrieved by the Order dated 02.06.2022 passed in CC.No.91/2020 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mandya and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant is the labour contractor and as per short term e-tender notice dated 10.06.2014-15 for filing sugar in Gunny Bags with capacity of 100 kgs for each bag and other allied activities such as stitching, loading to ware house and unloading of 9 lakhs quintals. Complainant is the approved tender after negotiations filing rate was fixed Rs.2.80 per quintal bag and Rs.6.74 per quintal bags for loading and unloading. The complainant has paid Rs.3.14 lakhs EMD at the time of taking part in e-tender. The complainant further stated that Opposite party No.1 has issued work order letter dated 19.07.2014 to carry out the activities for a quantity of Rs.6,00,000/- to the Gunny bags and other allied activities. Further, stated that as per the e-tender notice, the OP-1 was supposed to produce sugar 4 to 5 quintals of sugar per day and the complainant supposed to provide sufficient labour service to avoid jamming of sugar bins and in case of default on his part, it was agreed to penalizing. There were no latches on the part of the complainant in carrying out his service to the OP-1.
3. The complainant further submitted that OP No.1 is bound to pay labour service charges to him at the rate agreed for the entire quantity of 6 lakhs as per their own assurance. But, the first OP Company paid labour charges only Rs.2,01,250/- which is against to their own assurance and issued a letter dated 21.06.2017 that due to technical problem there was shortage of sugar production and OP industries produced only Rs.2,01,250/- quintal sugar as against 6 lakhs quintal. The complainant further contended that on account of shortage of production of sugar he was not prevented to pay the wages to the labourers. The OP-1 having enjoyed the labour services rendered by the complainant to its benefits since not paid a charge which amounts to deficiency of service and on the part of the OP/s. Hence, the complainant had issued a legal notice dated 14.01.2019 had requested OP/s to pay an amount Rs.76,60,000/- which is due with OP/s towards the service rendered by the complainant under different categories and in spite of service of notice, OP/s did not pay the amount. Hence, the complaint.
4. After service of the notice of the District Commission OP has failed to appear before the District Commission. Hence, placed exparte.
5. After trial the District Commission has allowed the complaint partly.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
7. Heard from both Appellant and Respondent.
8. Perused the appeal memo order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that it is not in dispute that the Respondent is a labour contractor and appellant had invited tenders for filing the sugar in the Gunny Bags with capacity of 100kg for each bag and for other activities such as stitching, loading to warehouse and unloading of 9 lakhs quintal as per tender notice dated 10.06.2014-15. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent has paid EMD of Rs.3.14 lakhs and took part in e-tender. It is also not in dispute that appellant had issued letter dated 19.07.2014 to the Respondent to carry out the activity for a quantity of 6 lakhs to the Gunny bag and for other activities. It is also not in dispute that Respondent had provided the service to the OP's company as per the short term E-tender without fail.
9. The allegations of the Respondent is that there was no hampering of service at his side with regard to his service for the entire quantity for filing, stitching, loading and unloading of 6 lakhs quintals of sugar. As per the assurance of the OP-1, OP No.1 is bound to pay labour service charges to him at the rate agreed for the entire quantity of 6 lakhs, but the appellant company paid the labour charges only of Rs.2,01,250/- and there is pending of charges towards quantity of Rs.3,38,750/- quintals. i.e., Rs.32,31,674/- which causes loss and mental agony to the complainant and Chief Engineer, Lab incharge of appellant company vide letter dated 02.05.2017 stated that due to technical problem there was shortage of sugar production. OP industry produced only Rs.2,01,250/- quintals as against 6 lakhs quintals. The OP/s are bound to pay labour charges as promised. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellant.
10. Perused the order passed by the District Commission we noticed that inspite of service on notice of District Commission, OP/s are failed to appear before the District Commission. Hence, placed exparte. Hence allegation of respondent remained unchallenged and District Commission after perusing the documents produced by the Respondent passed the order and holds that after taking order of labour service rendered by the Respondent for the benefits, appellant company had not paid labour charges as per E-tender which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the appellant company. Aggrieved by this order Appellant Company preferred this appeal and contended that the work order and tender was of the year 2014-15 and said complaint was not filed by the complainant with the statutory period of 2 years as per the CP Act. Also Complainant/Respondent not filed any application for condonation of delay. Hence complaint is itself is not maintainable. It is true that work tender is for the year 2014-15. However on 21.06.2017 letter was issued by Chief Engineer, Lab incharge of OP-1 stating that due to technical problem there was shortage of sugar production and also appellant has refunded EMD amount to the complainant on 12.12.2017. The complainant has issued a legal notice to the Appellant/OPs on 14.01.2019 and complaint was filed before District Commission on 30.11.2020 there was continuous cause of action and hence the complaint is well within Limitation period. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable as per Consumer Protection Act.
11. Now coming to the merit, we agreed with order passed by the District Commission because it is an evident that as per office note of the OP Company shows that the Respondent has rendered the service as per the work order without fail and in pursuance to the short term e-tender. He engaged 60 labour per shift at the wage of Rs.400 per liter and labours were supposed to work three shifts of 8 hours per day. If the respondent rendered labour service as per the work order to Appellant, it is the bounded duty of the appellant Company to pay labour charges which was promised by the appellant as per short term e-tender notice. As per e-tender notice, appellant was supposed to produce sugar of 4 to 5 quintal per day. But, appellant has failed to produce and for that Appellant Company is sole responsible. The respondent rendered his service as per e-tender. But, the appellant has failed to fulfill their promise and for that they cannot discharge their liability. The appellant company enjoyed labour services to their benefits but not paid labour charges which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the appellant in our opinion.
12. Hence, considering the facts and discussions made here we are of the opinion that order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Accordingly, we proceed the following:
O R D E R The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Office is directed to pay an amount deposited here by the appellant to the Respondent/Complainant by obtaining proper I.D. Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER P* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER