Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2921 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 30/06/2017 in Appeal No. 246/2017 of the State Commission Orissa)
1. ARINDAM PAUL (CHIEF FUNCTIONARY)
AUROBINDO CHOUDHURY MEMORIAL GREAT INDIAN DREAM FOUNDATION Through its Authorized Singnatory, Mr. Vishal Gupta, D-
103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi - 110 020 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SWATI PATANA D/O. P MALLIKAARJUNA RAO, NEHRU NAGAR, 2ND LANE, JYOTI FOUNDRY ROAD, P.O. &
DISTRICT-RAYAGADA ODISHA ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2922 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 30/06/2017 in Appeal No. 246/2017 of the State Commission Orissa)
WITH IA/16133/2017(Stay)
1. ARINDAM PAUL (CHIEF FUNCTIONARY)
AUROBINDO CHOUDHURY MEMORIAL GREAT INDIAN DREAM FOUNDATION Through its Authorized Singnatory, Mr. Vishal Gupta, D-
103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi - 110 020 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. M.SATYANARAYANA S/O. LT. VEER RAJU, AT RANIGUDA FARM ROAD, AT P.O.
DISTRICT-RAYAGADA ODISHA ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2923 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 30/06/2017 in Appeal No. 246/2017 of the State Commission Orissa)
WITH IA/16134/2017(Stay)
1. ARINDAM PAUL (CHIEF FUNCTIONARY)
AUROBINDO CHOUDHURY MEMORIAL GREAT INDIAN DREAM FOUNDATION Through its Authorized Singnatory, Mr. Vishal Gupta, D-
103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi - 110 020 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SUSHILA MAJHI C/O. JAGABANDHU PANIGRAHI, GOUTAM NAGAR, IST LANE, AT PO AND DISTRICT-RAYAGADA ODISHA ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2924 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 30/06/2017 in Appeal No. 246/2017 of the State Commission Orissa)
WITH IA/16135/2017(Stay)
1. ARINDAM PAUL (CHIEF FUNCTIONARY)
AUROBINDO CHOUDHURY MEMORIAL GREAT INDIAN DREAM FOUNDATION Through its Authorized Singnatory, Mr. Vishal Gupta, D-
103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi - 110 020 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SUKANT KUMAR SAHOO AT ROIT COLONY AT PO AND DISTRICT-RAYAGADA ODISHA ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2925 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 30/06/2017 in Appeal No. 246/2017 of the State Commission Orissa)
WITH IA/16136/2017(Stay)
1. ARINDAM PAUL (CHIEF FUNCTIONARY)
AUROBINDO CHOUDHURY MEMORIAL GREAT INDIAN DREAM FOUNDATION Through its Authorized Singnatory, Mr. Vishal Gupta, D-
103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi - 110 020 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SNIGDHA RANI GOUDA D/O. BAIJAYANTI MALA GOUDA, AT RANIGUDA FARM, HATIPATHAR ROAD, 3RD LANE, AT PO. AND DISTRICT-RAYAGADA ODISHA ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2926 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 30/06/2017 in Appeal No. 246/2017 of the State Commission Orissa)
WITH IA/16137/2017(Stay)
1. ARINDAM PAUL (CHIEF FUNCTIONARY)
AUROBINDO CHOUDHURY MEMORIAL GREAT INDIAN ...........Petitioner(s)
DREAM FOUNDATION Through its Authorized Singnatory, Mr. Vishal Gupta, D-
103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi - 110 020 Versus
1. JAGABANDHU PANIGARAHI S/O. KRUSHNA CHANDRA PANIGRAHI, GOUTAM NAGAR, 1ST LANE, AT PO DISTRICT-RAYAGADA ODISHA ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2927 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 30/06/2017 in Appeal No. 246/2017 of the State Commission Orissa)
WITH IA/16138/2017(Stay)
1. ARINDAM PAUL (CHIEF FUNCTIONARY)
AUROBINDO CHOUDHURY MEMORIAL GREAT INDIAN DREAM FOUNDATION Through its Authorized Singnatory, Mr. Vishal Gupta, D-
103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi - 110 020 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. PRATAP JENA, KASTURI NAGAR, 9TH LANE, AT PO DISTRICT-RAYAGADA ODISHA ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2928 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 30/06/2017 in Appeal No. 246/2017 of the State Commission Orissa)
WITH IA/16139/2017(Stay)
1. ARINDAM PAUL (CHIEF FUNCTIONARY)
AUROBINDO CHOUDHURY MEMORIAL GREAT INDIAN DREAM FOUNDATION Through its Authorized Singnatory, Mr. Vishal Gupta, D-
103, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi - 110 020 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SMITA RANI GOUDA D/O. BAIJAYANTI MALA GOUDA, AT RANIGUDA FARM, HATIPATHAR ROAD, 3RD LANE, AT PO &
DISTRICT-RAYAGADA ODISHA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Anukul Chandra Pradhan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rahul Baid, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 17 Oct 2017
ORDER
1. This batch of eight Revision Petitions, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by one Arindam Paul, Chief Functionary, Aurobindo Choudhury Memorial Great Indian Dream Foundation, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaints under the Act, is directed against different orders, all dated
30.06.2017, passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Cuttack (for short “the State Commission”) in Miscellaneous Cases No. 509/2017, 511/2017, 513/2017, 515/2017, 517/2017, 519/2017, 521/2017 & 523/2017 in/and First Appeals No. 246/2017, 247/2017, 248/2017, 249/2017, 250/2017, 251/2017, 252/2017 & 253/2017 respectively. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner, as barred by limitation.
2. The Appeals had been preferred by the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner herein, against different orders, all dated 30.11.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Rayagada (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases No. 109/2016, 101/2016, 115/2016, 112/2016, 110/2016, 107/2016, 108/2016 and 111/2016, filed by the Respondents herein. By the said orders, while accepting the Complaints, the District Forum had, inter alia, directed the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainants their pending retiral dues from September, 2015 till the filing of the cases; 10% TDS; and TA, with interest @ 3%, with a default stipulation of payment of interest @ 9% on the awarded amount in the event of failure on the part of the Opposite Parties in complying with the said directions.
3. Since the issue involved in all the Complaints is common and the Forums below have decided the Complaints/First Appeals on identical lines, though by different orders, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
However, for the sake of ready reference, Revision Petition No.2921 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereunder are also taken from the said Revision Petition, which would govern all the cases.
4. The Complainant in the said Revision Petition worked as IT-cum-MIS Trainer at ACM-GIDF for Rayagada under the supervision of the Petitioner Foundation. He worked as such till December, 2015. In the end of the said month, the said Centre/Office was locked by the house-owner, due to non-payment of rent. The Complainant had been paid his salary till August, 2015, after deduction of Tax At Source (TDS) @ 10%. According to the Complainant, the said deduction was being made by the Opposite Parties without disclosing the TDS Account Number. When the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for payment of his pending dues, he was assured that as soon as the office premises reopens, his dues would be cleared.
However, even after a lapse of three months, the Complainant was not paid the same.
In the said background, afore-noted Complaint(s) came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainant(s) had prayed for the reliefs mentioned in the Complaint(s).
5. Upon notice, the Opposite Parties contested the Complaints by filing their Written Versions, denying the allegations levelled against them in the said Complaints.
6. On evaluation of the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum, as noted above, allowed the Complaints and issued the aforesaid directions to the Opposite Parties.
7. Aggrieved, the Opposite Parties carried the matter further in their Appeals to the State Commission, albeit, with a delay 134 days. For condonation of the said delay, the Opposite Parties had also filed Applications in the said Appeals. In paragraphs 2 –
3 of the said Applications, the Opposite Parties had furnished the explanation, cited in the impugned orders. For the sake of brevity, we refrain ourselves from re-producing the said explanation in this order.
8. As afore-stated, the State Commission has come to the conclusion that the said explanation does not make out any sufficient cause for condonati
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
