DOF.1.3.2004 DOO.2.9.2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 2nd day of September 2010 C.C.No.56/2004 V.Hamza,(Died) Vallikkavu House, Kakkuva, P.O.Keezhpally. 2.V.H.Selma,D/o.Late Hamza 3.V.H.Shihabudeen, S/o.Late Hamza 4. V.H.Muhammed Ali, S/o.Late Hamza 5. V.H.Samna, D/o.Late Hamza Vallikkavu House, Kakkuva, P.O.Keezhpally Complainants (Rep. by Adv.John Joseph) 1. Regional P.F Commissioner, EPF Organisation, 8 & 9 Floors Cannaught Circus, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Board of Trustees, EPF, State Farms Corporation of India Ltd., 14, 15, Farms Bhavan, Nehru Place, Opposite Parties New Delhi. (Rep. by Adv.V.C.Pramod kumar) 3.Manager, LIC of India, Zonal Office, P.B.No.630, New Delhi 110001. (Rep.byAdv.O.K.Sasindran) O R D E R Sm.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to disburse EDLIS benefits due to the deceased Pathumma to the complainants who are her legal heirs along with 12% interest per annum with effect from 2.12.02 and to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation with cost. The complainant’s averments are as follows: he is the husband and nominee of late C.Pathumma who was a subscriber of EPF and allied schemes and she was died on 2.12.02 while she was working as an agricultural worker in central State Farm, Kannur and her EPF Account No. is DL/3670/03991. She is survived by the complainant and 4 children such as V.Salma, Shihabudden (minor) Muhammadali (minor) and Shamna (minor) and the complainant is filing this complaint in his capacity as the nominee of the deceased for the benefit of all legal heirs. The 2nd opposite party is administering the EPF account of the deceased Pathumma who had 21 years of continuous service and 2nd opposite party has collected contribution for Employees Deposit linked insurance scheme. The 1st opposite party having jurisdiction to EPF and allied schemes pertaining to the deceased and is bound to disburse the EDLIS benefit within 30 days from the receipt of application through 2nd opposite party. The complainants had submitted application or the EDLIS benefit during 2003 January before the Director, Central State Farm, Aralam and it is revealed that the said application is duly forwarded to the 2nd opposite party to be sent to 1st opposite party for disbursement of EDLIS benefit. Even after more than one year the complainant has not received any amount from 1st opposite party towards EDLIS benefit. The complainant is entitled to get a sum foRs.65000/- from 1st opposite party. The complainant is also entitled to get 12% interest per annum upon the said amount due to inordinate delay. So on 2.4.03 the complaint caused to issue lawyer notice on 29.3.03 to the employer as well as 2nd opposite party. Even though both the parties have received notice they have neither disbursed the amount nor replied to it. The complainant had suffered so much of both mental as well as physical hardship and these was caused due to the deficiency of service of opposite parties. Hence this complaint. In pursuance to the notice received from the Forum opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared and filed their version. The 1st opposite party filed statement contending that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case sine the 1t opposite party is not within the jurisdiction of the Forum and no cause of action also arise within the jurisdiction of this Forum. More over the ex-employer of the deceased Pathumma is an exempted establishment under clause 2 A of section 17 of EPF and MP Act 1952. The DLI accounts in respect of the employees of M/s. State Farms Corporation of India have been maintained by the Life Insurance Corporation of Indian under group insurance scheme. So the payment of DLI benefits has not been released by LIC only and hence the complaint is not maintainable against opposite’s party. On receipt of the complaint the 1st opposite party contacted 2nd opposite party and they informed by a letter No./SFCI/EDLI/17-42/2003-04 at 8.6.04 that the DLI claim in respect of deceased member Pathumma has already been settled by LIC and paid Rs.62000/- to State Farms Corporation Ltd. To arrange to disburse the DLI payments to the legal heirs of the deceased members. The 2nd opposite party also intimated that on 16.6.04 that they have already advised to release the EDLI payments immediately and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party also field version contending that the complainant is not a consumer as per section 2(1) (d) of the Act. Since he or his wife had availed of any service from the opposite party for any consideration. The relationship between 2nd opposite party and the deceased Pathumma is that of an employer employee relationship and hence the complainant is not a consumer under section 2(1) (d) and 2(1) (o) of the Act. Since the complainant has no complaint against 2nd opposite party the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The 2nd opposite party had requested the complainant to produce legal heir ship certificate and immediately on producing the same, the 2nd opposite party had done all the needful without any further delay. The opposite party has not caused any personal or financial loss to the complainant nor treated him with indifference and hence the opposite party has no liability to compensate the complainant. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Later on as per the contention raised by the 1st opposite party the complainant had imp leaded the LIC of India as 3rd opposite party and in pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum 3 rd opposite party also appeared and filed their venison contending that LIC of India has the pension and group scheme has a group insurance scheme. EDLI scheme with state Farm Corporation of India. The master policy holder is the employer and the contract is with the employer and the members covered under the scheme are only beneficiaries and they are not party to the contract. 3rd opposite party had received the intimation claim papers from the State Farm Corporation of India on 22.1.04 with a request that the claim amount to be sent to their office due to court case. The SFCIL lodged other claim also with this case. The company has taken EDLI scheme for Rs.62, 000/- to the employees covered under the scheme and it is not for Rs.65, 000/- as alleged in the compliant. The opposite party had made the payment as the same date for Rs.3,72,000/- though cheque No.509691 dt.23.1.04 favouring State farm corporation of India Ltd., payable at Syndicate bank, 25-Kg.Marg, New Delhi 110001. So there was no delay on the part of 3rd opposite party. 3rd opposite party had not received any legal notice from the complainant. The opposite party had come to know through the SFCIL’s letter dt.22.1.04 received on 23.1.04. The cheque also stands encashed form the opposite party’s bank account in due course. Therefore 3rd opposite party is not liable for any relief claimed. As per the policy conditions the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.62, 000/- only as death benefit available under EDLI scheme. The 3rd opposite party has honoured the claim without any delay and the entire benefit as per the terms of the policy conditions has been settled on 23.1.04. So the 3rd opposite party is not liable for delay or for interest or for payment of compensation. More over the forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case since the complainant is not a consumer of 3rd opposite party. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above contention the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whther the complaint is a consumer and the Forum has jurisdiction? 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and Exts.A1 to A8 and B1 and B2. Issue No. 1 The 2nd opposite party contended that the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer since neither the complainant nor his wife had availed any service from him. More over, the relationship between the compliant and 2nd opposite party is that of employee and employer relationship. 1st opposite party contented that they were not within the jurisdiction of the Forum nor any cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The 3rd opposite party also contended that the complainant is not a consumer of 3rd opposite party. The complainant has filed this complaint as nominee and legal heirs of deceased employee of central state Farm, Aralam for the benefit under the Employees Deposit linked Insurance Scheme. In Regional Provident fund Commissioner vs. Shivakuamr Joshi, the Hon.ble Apex court held that the provident fund scheme established under Employees provident Fund and miscellaneous provisions act, 1952, the member of a scheme is consumer under section 2(1) (d) of C.P. Act, 1986, and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner discharges statutory function and does not discharge any sovereign function and hence his service is there fore service. The same was reported in 2000 NCJ SC 185. As per Ext.B 1 produced by the 1st opposite patty which as issued by Assistant Provident Fund commissioner shows that from 1.10.89 to 30.9.98, M/s.State Farm Corporation of India is an exempted establishment and the person employed in the establishment, the employer shall immediately admit him s a member of group insurance scheme and pay necessary premium in respect of him to Life Insurance Corporation of India. So accordingly the 2nd opposite party admitted the deceased into the group insurance scheme. More over the 1st opposite party had branch at Kannur. In this case the dispute is with respect tot EDLIS benefit of the employer and not with respect to the salaries or perquisites of the employee. Above all it is true that the complainant’s wife is the member of group insurance for which premium was paid by the employer as per B1 Notification and hence the complainant is a beneficiary of the EDLIS with the 3rd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party. As per the Act, a beneficiary is also a consumer. So from the above discussion we hold the view that the complaint is a consumer and hence this Forum have ample jurisdiction to try the case and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant. Issue Nos. 2 to4 This complaint has been filed by the complainant for the benefit under the employees deposit linked insurance scheme of the 1st complainant’s deceased wife i.e. for Rs.65000/- with 12% interest from 2.12.02 till realization with cost and compensation. But during pendency of the case on 13.2.04 an amount of Rs.62000/- was disbursed to the complainant. So in order to find out the answer to the issue No.2, the following questions to be answered i.e. whether the complainant is entitled to receive balance amount of Rs.3000/- as EDLIS benefit and whether he is entitled to receive 12% interest. The complaint in his arguments notes prayed that the complainants are entitled to get the statutory interest of 12% on the amount of Rs.62000/- from the date of death of C. Pathumma till realization. So the complainant conceded her claim for DLIS benefit as Rs.62000/-. So we hold that the complainant has no more claims for benefit as EDLIS. The next question to be answered is that whether the complainant is entitled to receive 12% interest from 2.12.02. According to the complainant his wife died on 2.12.02 and he is entitled to get EDLIS benefit from 2.12.02. As per section 24(4) of the Employees Deposit Linked Insurance scheme 1976, “the claims complete in all respects submitted along with the requisite documents shall be settled and benefit amount paid to the beneficiaries within thirty days from the date of its receipt by the commissioner. If there is any deficiency in the claim, the same shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant within thirty days from the date of receipt of such application. In case the Commissioner fails without sufficient cause to settle a claim complete in all respect within30 days, the commissioner shall be liable for the delay beyond the said period and penal interest 12% per annum may be charged on the benefit amount. The documents produced along with Ext.B3 i.e. Claim form submitted by the claimant shows that it was submitted on31.1.03 and it bears a seal of LIC of India. In that seal the date is shown as 28.4.03. From this it is seen that the complainant had submitted the application to employer and he had submitted to the LIC of India and they received the same on 28.4.03. But it is admitted fact that the LIC of India had disbursed the amount only on 23.1.04. But the 2nd opposite party contended that the delay was caused because the complaint had not submitted the legal heir ship certificate of the deceased. But they have not produced any document to show that the 2nd opposite party had intimated the same thing within 30 days from the date of submitting the claim application. More over on 23.1.04, the 3rd opposite party had disbursed the amount even without the legal heirship certificate. So the above contention of the 2nd opposite party cannot be taken into consideration. The opposite parties were produced a notification dated 7.6.99 in it, it is stated that upon the death of the member covered under the group insurance scheme, the life Insurance Corporation of India shall ensure prompt payment of the sum assured to the nominees, legal heirs of the deceased member entitled it and in any case within one month from the receipt of the claim complete in all respect. So it is seen that even though 3rd opposite party has received the application on 28.4.03, they took 9 months to disburse the amount. So from the available document it is seen that 3rd opposite party shown deficiency of service in disbursing the amount to the complainant within time. If the application is deficient in any manner, they should inform the same to the complainant in writing within30 days. But no evidence before us to show that they had issued any letter to that effect. Moreover, the complainant is a nominee of the deceased Pathuma and as per notification i.e. B1, the LIC of India can disburse the amount to the nominee. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of 3rd opposite party in disbursing the amount to the complainant within time and hence they are liable to compensate the complainants by allowing 12% interest from 31.2.03 up to 23.1.04 along with Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainants and the complainants 2 to 5 are entitled to receive the same and order passed accordingly. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are exempted from liabilities. In the result, complaint is allowed directing the 3rd opposite party to pay interest at the rate of 12% from 31.1.03 to 23.1.04 for Rs.62000/- which was already disbursed to the complainant along with Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainants within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the 3rd opposite party under the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1. Copy of the death certificate of C.Pathumma. A2. Copy of the annual EPF statement given by OP2 A3.Copy of salary slip issued to C.Pathymma for 11/2000. A4 to A8.Copy f lawyer notice sent to OPs, postal receipt and AD cards. Exhibits for the opposite parties: B1.Copy of gazette notification dt.7.6.99 B2.Copy of the letter issued by 2nd OP B3.Copy of the letter dt.23.1.04 issued by OP3. Witness examined for the complainant PW1. 1st complainant PW2.Sihabudeen Witness examined for opposite parties: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
