State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ahluwalia Cotractors(I) Ltd. vs Gurmail Singh on 30 November, 2015
Daily Order FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.518 of 2013 Date of Institution: 06.05.2013 Date of Decision: 30.11.2015 Ahluwalia Contractors (I) Ltd, M-1, Saket, New Delhi through its authorized representative Sh. Manoj Kumar. ...Appellant/Opposite Party Versus Gurmail Singh s/o Sh. Labh Singh r/o D.A.C Handlaya Road, Mahesh Nagar, Barnala. ..Respondent /Complainant First Appeal against order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri. V.K. Gupta, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. D.K.Singhal, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, Advocate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
The appellant of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint) has filed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order dated 12.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Barnala, accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing the OP to pay the GPF/PPF deducted from his salary from to time as per government rules and to pay composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OP now appellant.
2. The complainant Gurmail Singh has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he joined the services of OP as Assistant Project Manager and was allotted his employment no.T-1157 and OP agreed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- to him, as monthly salary along with other allowances and facilities. The complainant was posted to Savoy Greens (Daburji) Amritsar, vide transfer letter no.TFR/RO/52 dated 14.12.2010 and thereafter he was posted to Rajgarh Estate Ludhiana. The complainant remained in the employment of OP for seven months and three days in the said project. The complainant is income tax assesses with account no.AE 1299 G. The OP continued deducting a sum of Rs.1500/- per month from the salary of the complainant, as GP Fund. The services of the complainant were terminated without any reason in an arbitrary manner by the OP. The complainant made several requests to OP to make the payment of Rs.4,30,416/- deducted from his monthly salary towards GP Fund along with other outstanding amount, but it was ignored. Legal notice was also served upon OP by the complainant on 28.03.2012, but to no effect. The complainant further averred that the terms and conditions of the employment were settled at Barnala and hence Barnala Consumer Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against OP directing them to pay the amount of Rs. 4,30,416/- and further to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of damages for setback caused to the reputation of the complainant, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and field written reply by raising the preliminary objections that complaint is misconceived being the result of afterthought. The complaint being frivolous, merits dismissal under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has not approached the Consumer Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the facts. The complainant has no cause of action or locus standi to file the complaint against OP. It was further emphatically pleaded in the preliminary and legal objections that Barnala District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. The complaint was also resisted even on merits. OP denied the averment of the complainant that it agreed to pay Rs.40000/- as salary to the complainant per month. It pleaded that complainant was given basic pay of Rs.16,000/- plus other allowances. The complainant was posted as Assistant Project Manager at Savoy Greens Hotel Project at Daburjee Amritsar and was transferred to Ludhiana on 14.10.2012 and was posted at project site Rajgarh Estates Ludhiana. The complainant's work was not up to the mark and to provide him an opportunity to improve his work; he was posted on his request near his home, but he failed to come up to the level of the company and was ultimately allowed to leave the services of the company. The complainant caused loss by unauthorizedly advancing money to some non-existing persons and had caused loss by violating the norms of the work of OP. The OP vehemently stated in the written reply on merits that it has no office at Barnala. The complainant claims false assertion of settlement of terms and conditions of the services of the complainant at Barnala. The complainant cannot be allowed to chose for bench-hunting. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Guarav Dhawan Authorized Signatory of Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd Ex.R-1 along with copies of the documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-7. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Barnala, accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order of District Forum Barnala dated 12.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Barnala dated 12.03.2013, the OP now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length in this appeal and have also gone through the record of the case.
6. Sh.D.K. Singhal counsel for OP now appellant vehemently argued before us that Barnala District Forum which passed the impugned order in this case lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. On the other hand, counsel for respondent Sh. Sukhwinder Singh argued that the order of the District Forum is sustainable in coming to the conclusion that the District Forum Barnala has the requisite territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint, because the terms and conditions of the services of the complainant were settled thereat. This is the moot point involved in this case for adjudication of this appeal. We can further proceed to decide the case, if we come to the conclusion that District Forum Barnala was competent to decide the complaint, as it was vested with territorial jurisdiction to try it. The complainant has alleged in para no.8 of the complaint that the terms and conditions of the employment of the complainant were settled at Barnala, hence the District Forum Barnala has territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. On the other hand, OP in the written reply to corresponding paragraph no.8 of the complaint denied this assertion of the complainant. The OP vehemently denied that it has any office at Barnala or any such terms and conditions were settled of service of the complainant thereat. We find from perusal of the complaint that the OP carries on business at New Delhi and no branch office of OP is situated at Barnala. The counsel for complainant now respondent in this appeal is unable to point out any document on the record proving that the terms and conditions of service of the complainant were ever settled at Barnala. There is a bald statement of the complainant in his affidavit on the record only in this regard. We have examined the documents on the record, but we are unable to come across any document on the file proving that the terms and conditions of employment/services of the complainant were ever settled at Barnala. We are strictly bound by Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is reproduced as under :-
Jurisdiction of the District Forum.--(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ''does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,--
the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
It is, thus, plain from perusal of Section 11 of the Act that either the OP at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or the cause of action wholly or in part, arises to confer the jurisdiction on that Consumer Forum. We find that OP did not carry any business at Barnala nor its branch office is at Barnala. The complainant was posted at Amritsar and thereafter shifted to Ludhiana and he served at Amritsar and then at Ludhiana only. It is not believable that when work job of the complainant was at Amritsar and Ludhiana; the terms and conditions, as per pleading of the complainant were settled at Barnala, more so, when there is no branch office of OP at Barnala. We find that no part of cause of action accrued to complainant within area of District Forum Barnala. The District Forum wrongly assumed the jurisdiction to decide the complaint. The District Forum lacked the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint despite the fact that OP raised specific plea in the written reply that District Forum is not vested with territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. Consequently, the order of the District Forum is nonest, as it has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.
7. We have also examined law laid down in Union of India & ors..versus Ram Dayal, reported in I (2012) CPJ 9 (NC) and Om Parkash Sethi versus Accountant General, Haryana, reported in III (2010) CPJ 289 (NC). But we find that when the District Forum Barnala assumed the jurisdiction illegally and hence we cannot touch the merits of the case and there is no need to dilate on the above authority in this order. These authorities would have been meaningful, had the jurisdiction of District Forum Barnala inhered in passing the order under challenge in this case and then case should have been sensu stricto decided on its merits alone.
8. As a result of our above discussion, appeal of the appellant is accepted and by setting aside the order of the District Forum Barnala dated 12.03.2013, complaint is ordered to be returned by District Forum Barnala to complainant for its presentation before competent Consumer Forum, which has the requisite territorial jurisdiction, as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Both parties are directed to appear before District Forum, Barnala on 03.02.2016 and record of the District Forum be sent back forthwith.
9. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.5,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
10. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 27.11.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (V.K.GUPTA) MEMBER November 30, 2015 (rb)