PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                                CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 112/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Bishnupriya Samantaray, Aged about 67 years

S/O- Charan Samantaray,

R/O of Gujatal, near Govt. ITI, Hirakud, PS-Hirakud,

Dist-Sambalpur-768016, Odisha,                                  …………........Complainant

Vrs.

1. Executive Engineer, TPWODL, Sambalpur

Electrical Division, Ainthapali, Sambalpur-768004.

2. Head, Human Resources Department, TPWODL,

AT/PO-Burla, Dist-Sambalpur-768017.

3. The Commissioner, Regional Office, (EPFO),

Employee Provident Fund Organisation,

Bhabisya Nidhi Bhawan, At- Civil Town Ship, Panposh Road,

Rourkela-769012, Dist-Sundargarh.….…...…….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. A.K. Das & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                       :- Sri. Swapnil Ku. Nanda, Parikha Gupta &  Samapika    

      Mohanty

Date of Filing:17.07.2023,Date of Hearing :05.02.2024,Date of Judgement :27.02.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The Complainant filed this case alleging deficiency in service of the O.Ps. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a senior citizen and her son Bipin Kumar Samantaray was working under Executive Engineer SED (Electric Deptt.) TPWODL, Sambalpur as lineman (c) and expired on 25.08.2019 due to cancer. PF A/C No. UAN No. 100115526743 was with O.P. No.3. The Complainant served a regd. Letter to O.P. No.1 on 09.03.2023 for payment of outstanding dues of her deceased son with relevant documents on 12.04.2023. The O.P. no.1 had to send the said documents to O.P. No.3 but the O.P. No.1 failed to do so and deficient in its service. A demand letter was sent to O.P. No.3 on 08.06.2023 for release of outstanding amount of Rs. 20.00 lakhs and it is duly received by O.P. No.3 on 12.06.2023 but O.P. no.3 remained silent. The O.P. No.1 also received the documents and applicant on 10.03.2023 but remained silent. Reminder dated 12.04.2023 a letter with documents. was also sent to O.P. No.3 but its remained silent.

Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.

2. The case of the O.P. No.1 & 2 is that son of the Complainant was working as Likeman-C in the office of O.P. no.1 and died due to cancer on 25.08.2019. The complaint is not maintainable as it is service matter and Complainant is not a ‘consumer’. The O.P. No.1 has sent letters to the wife of deceased on 30.04.2022 and 18.05.2022 asking her to submit the required documents for payment of all death/service benefits of the deceased employee. Complainant is claiming to be one of the legal heirs. Bipin Kumar Samantaray took medical advance of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The same has not been adjusted till date due to non-co-operation of the legal heirs. The legal heirs have not submitted required documents including NOC for payment of gratuity and utilized leave salary and adjustment of medical advance taken. For EPF the legal heirs need to apply to EPFO through the employer as per prescribed format. There is no deficiency on the part of O.P. No.1 & 2.
3. The O.P. no.3 in its reply submitted that Bipin Kumar Samnantaray is having EPF A/C No. OR/RKL/8144/688 claimed to have expired on 25.08.2019. Widow of deceased Smt. Subhasmita Baliarsingh visited the office and enquired the claim procedures and application for settlement on 09.10.2023. Her father-in-law Charan Samantaray was working in Govt. ITI, Hirakud and now retired and getting pension. He was not a dependent on son. Further brother-in-law Bibhutibhusan Samantaray of the deceased husband of widow working as an officer cardre as SDO in the O.P. no.1 Company where the deceased Likeman-C was working. Mother of the deceased/Complainant is the wife of a govt. employee pension holder is not a dependent.

The widow is having two minor daughters. As per para 70(iii) of the E.P.F. scheme, 1952 only dependent parents are entitled for a share of claim incase nominationnot relates. The Complainant is not entitled to get as she is not dependent.

As per para 72(7) of the EPF scheme, 1952 O.P. no3 is to settle the claim if is it complete in all respect and documents. As the claim of Complainant was not complete it was returned vide letter No. 176 dated 13.09.2023. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering O.P. and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Documents filed by the Complainant.

1. Front page of service book of Bipin Kumar Samantaray.
2. Death certificate of deceased Bipin Kumar Samantaray.
3. Legal heir certificate dated 27.12.2019 issued by Revenue officer, Sambalpur.
4. Letter to Executive Engineer SED, TPWODL dated 08.03.2023.
5. Reminder letter dated 12.04.2023 to executive Engineer, TPWODL, Ainthapali.
6. Letter dated 19.06.2023 to Commissioner, EPFO, Rourkela.
7. Forms under EPF scheme, 1952 along with SBI, Bareipali, S.B.A/C No. 37666077042.

The O.P. no.1 & 2 filed the following documents:

1. Receipt letter dated 09.10.2023 of Subhasmita Baliarsingh.
2. Letter No. 949 dated 18.05.2022 to Subhasmita baliarsingh.

The O.P. No.3 submitted:

1. Receipt letter dated 09.10.2023 of Subhasmita Baliarsingh.
2. Death Certificate of Bipin Kumar Samantaroy.
3. Legal Heir certificate.
4. Birth certificate of Dibyanshi Samantaray
5. Birth certificate of Priyanshi Samantaray.
6. Letter No. Or/RKL/8144/688/176 dated 13.09.2023 addressed to Bishupriya Samantaray with track report of delivery.

5. Perused the documents filed by the parties. From the documents it reveals that this is a case relating to claim of all service benefits after the death of an employee like gratuity, provident fund etc. The O.P. No.1 & 2 challenged that it is not a consumer dispute. In this contest the case of Venkatesh & others Vs. Vishwanath dated 28.11.2007 of the hon’ble National Commission can be referred and Regional Provident fund Commissioner Vs Shiv Kumar Joshi-III(1999). Retirement benefits of employee/deceased employee/employee left job etc., contributions of the employee to be returned by employer. EPFO which is coming under the consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thereafter 2019.

Accordingly, the complaint is maintainable before this Commission as the Complainant is a legal-heir of the deceased.

6. From the pleadings of the parties it is evident that there is a dispute between the Complainant and widow of the deceased Bipin Kumar Samantaray. When a dispute ‘Civil in nature’ exist the O.Ps have not disbursed the gratuity, provident fund and other retirement benefits. In one hand complaint as a mother claiming the benefits and in the other hand Subhasmita Baliarsingh claiming that Subhasmita, Bishupriya Dibyanshi and Priyansi are the legal heirs entitled for the claim. The parties made the dispute a Civil dispute which is not maintainable before this Commission. In case of emicable consent of the disputing parties for deficiency in service this Commission has jurisdiction.

Accordingly, following order is passed.

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. The Complainant including other heirs of Bipin Kumar Samantaray are at liberty to file complaint on fresh cause of action or before Civil court for redressal of the dispute. No cost and compensation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27^th day of Feb. 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.