IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 13th day of May, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.162/08 (Filed on 5.11.2008) Between: T.P. Raghavan, Thundiyil Sreenilayam, Angadi.P.O., Ranni. ...... Complainant And: 1. Accountant General, Accountant General Office, Kozhikodu. 2. Headmaster, Govt. H.S.S, Kadumeenchira, Ranni. 3. Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram. 4. Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram. ..... Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is as follows:- The complainant retired from service on 31.3.2007 as a Govt. teacher from the 2nd opposite party school and he is a subscriber to General Provident Fund vide No.Edn.187509 from September 1980 onwards. He had remitted his contribution regularly and he is not a defaulter of any amount till his retirement. In connection with his retirement, the 2nd opposite party forwarded relevant papers for closing the complainant’s P.F account for getting Rs.1,06,025/-, amount stands in his credit at the time of his retirement. But the 1st opposite party has sanctioned only Rs.98,196/-. On getting the sanction order, the 2nd opposite party sent a letter to the 1st opposite party intimating the above facts with a request for sanctioning the remaining Rs.12,751/-. But the 1st opposite party replied that as per the P.F account of the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- was withdrawned by the complainant during June 1992 as advance. It was not remitted by the complainant, so the complainant’s account was debited with Rs.12,751/- being the above said unpaid advance and its interest. So the complainant is entitled to get only Rs.98,196/-, which was already sanctioned. According to the complainant, the so called withdrawal of Rs.3,000/- during June 1992 is true. But he had repaid the said amount promptly and hence the complainant is entitled to get the entire amount as per the closure statement submitted by the 2nd opposite party. The non-payment of the balance amount by the 1st opposite party is a deficiency in service. This caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for the realisation of the unpaid balance of Rs.12,751/- stands in the credit of the complainant’s P.F account with 21% interest along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony with cost of Rs.2,500/- from the opposite parties. 3. In this case, all the opposite parties filed their versions separately. The 1st opposite party filed their version with the following main contentions:- The 1st opposite party submitted that this complaint is not maintainable before the Forum as the dispute herein cannot be considered as a service and the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Further to this contention the other contention of the 1st opposite party is that, while reviewing the account in connection with the closing of the complainant’s P.F account it is brought out that a withdrawal of Rs.3,000/- was made during 6/1992 which was missing in the account. No refund was seen effected on account of this withdrawal. The said withdrawal of Rs.3000/- plus interest thereon from 6/1992 to 10/2006 amounting to Rs.12,751/- was deducted from the final balance and Rs.98,196/- was given to the complainant through the 2nd opposite party vide order No.PF.41/1/C1.140/06-07/752, 753 dated 17.11.2006. This fact was also communicated to the 2nd opposite party in reply to the letter sent by the 2nd opposite party in this regard on 29.11.2006. So according to the 1st opposite party, the complainant is not entitled to get anymore amount or any interest and the 1st opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. With the above contentions, the 1st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The 2nd opposite party filed his version stating the procedures done by the 2nd opposite party in this matter. He stated that he send an application for closing the P.F account of the complainant to the 1st opposite party claiming altogether an amount of Rs.1,06,025/- as per the available records. But the 1st opposite party sanctioned only Rs.98,196/- stating about the so called withdrawal of Rs.3,000/- of the complainant in the year 1992. The sanctioned amount was cashed and disbursed to the complainant. However, on verifying the records in the school it is seen that the complainant was working as H.S.A in Govt. H.S.S. Pookottumpadom, Nilambur, Malappuram Dist. during the period of missing debit, i.e. 1992-93. Records regarding the GPF subscription, advances and refund are maintained in the respective schools. Hence records about his GPF transactions during 1992-93 are not available with the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party also stated that the complete details of the complainant’s GPF will be available with the 1st opposite party who is the competent authority to settle the dispute herein and the 2nd opposite party is no way responsible or liable in any manner. 5. 3rd opposite party filed their version, which is in tune with the version of the 1st opposite party. The 4th opposite party also filed their version stating that the 4th opposite party is also adopting the version of the 1st opposite party. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Relief and Costs? 7. The evidence of this case consists of the oral deposition of the complainant as PW1 based on the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 and B2. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 8. Point No.1:- The 1st opposite party challenged the maintainability of this complaint stating that the dispute herein is not a consumer dispute and the complainant is not a consumer of the 1st opposite party as per the provisions of the C.P. Act. It is also alleged that the matter in issue is a service matter, which cannot be settled under the provisions of C.P.Act. But the facts and circumstances, of this complaint reveals that the disputed matter is a consumer dispute as the complainant is a consumer of the 1st opposite party being the subscriber in G.P.F controlled and managed by the 1st opposite party. So in that respect, the complainant is a consumer of the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party is a service provider to the complainant. The dispute herein is in respect of an alleged deficiency in service from the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence we hold that this complaint is maintainable before the Forum. 9. Point Nos.2 & 3:- The complainant’s case is that in his G.P.F account an amount of Rs.1,06,025/- was in his credit at the time of his retirement. But the 1st opposite party had sanctioned only Rs.98,196/-. On enquiry the 1st opposite party informed the complainant that during 1992 the complainant had a withdrawal of Rs.3,000/- which was remitted back. So the complainant had a liability of Rs.12,751/- which was adjusted at the time of closing the complainant’s P.F. account being the non remitted advance and its interest. The said adjustment is the reason for the sanction of a lower amount than the amount claimed by the complainant. The said Rs.12,751/- is the amount of Rs.3,000/- withdrawned by the complainant in the year 1992 as advance and its interest thereon from the withdrawal. But according to the complainant, in fact he had a withdrawal Rs.3,000/- in the year 1992, the same was refunded within time and hence he had no liability in his account as claimed by the 1st opposite party. 10. In order to prove the complainant’s case, he had filed a proof affidavit narrating his case and produced certain documents. On the basis of proof affidavit complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. The complainant was cross-examined by the counsel for the opposite parties. Ext.A1 is the copy of the order dated 17.11.06 of the 1st opposite party authorizing 2nd opposite party to withdraw the closing balance of Rs.98,196/- stands in the credit of the complainant’s P.F account. Ext.A2 is the annual statement of GPF of the complainant for the year 1992-93 issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2(a) is the annual statement of GPF of the complainant for the year 1993-94 issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2(b) is the annual statement of GPF of the complainant for the year 1994-95 issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2(c) is the annual statement of GPF of the complainant for the year 1995-96 issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A3 is the copy of the letter-dated 29.11.06 issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of the 2nd opposite party stating the reason for sanctioning a lesser amount to the complainant. On the basis of the above documents, the complainant argued that as per Ext.A2 series he had no liability as claimed by the 1st opposite party. As per Ext.A2 the balance amount stands in the credit of the complainant is Rs.22,491/- as on 31st March 1993. As per Ext.A2(a) the closing balance as on 31st March 1994 is Rs.8,704/-. But Ext.A2(a) is not proper. As per Ext.A2(b) opening balance is Rs.27,651/- and the closing balance as on 31st March 1995 is Rs.38,102/-. Opening balance in Ext.A2(b) is Rs.27,651/-. This is the balance amount after the deduction of the withdrawned amount if the advance was not returned, his opening balance would be Rs.31,195/- instead of Rs.27,651/- seen in Ext.A2(b). Thus the complainant had no liability in his account. Without considering these facts, the 1st opposite party had illegally debited his account with interest of the already remitted advance and hence the 1st opposite party is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.12,751/-. 11. But the contention of the 1st opposite party is that the complainant had not remitted back the advance amount received by him during 1992-93. But the 1st opposite party had not adduced any oral evidence to prove their contentions. But they have cross-examined the complainant and 2 documents were marked through the complainant as Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the copy of the application for closure of GPF submitted by the complainant before the first opposite party. Ext.B2 is the copy of a letter dated 17.10.2006 issued by the first opposite party to the second opposite party calling him to submit certain documents in connection with the complainant’s P.F. account. 12. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, we have perused the materials on record. The only dispute is with regard to Rs.3,000/- withdrawned by the complainant as advance during 1992-93. According to the complainant we had repaid the said amount in time. But according to the 1st opposite party, the complainant had not repaid the said amount. But the 1st opposite party has not adduced any cogent evidence before this Forum to substantiate their contention. At the same time, the complainant had produced Exts.A2 series to substantiate his contentions, which was not objected by the 1st opposite party. The allegations of the complainant that Ext.A2(a) issued by the 1st opposite party is not proper, is also not challenged by the 1st opposite party. The averment of the 2nd opposite party that all the details of the P.F account of the complainant is available with the 1st opposite party is also not challenged by the 1st opposite party. In the circumstances of the above said allegations, the 1st opposite party ought to have produced the details of the P.F account of the complainant. But they have not produced any documents in this regard. So we are constrained to accept the contentions of the complainant that the 1st opposite party is liable to pay an amount of Rs.12,751/- to the complainant. The said non-payment is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence we find that this complaint is allowable against first opposite party with compensation and cost. Moreover, we find no deficiency of service from other opposite parties. 13. In the result, the complaint is allowed against the 1st opposite party and thereby the 1st opposite party is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.12,751/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Seven hundred and fifty one only) to the complainant with 10% interest per annum from 31.3.07 till this date along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the whole amount ordered herein above from the first opposite party with 12% interest per annum from today till the whole payment. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 13th day of May, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : T.P. Raghavan Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : True copy of the order dated 17.11.06 of the 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party A2 : Annual statement of GPF of the complainant for the year 1992-93 issued by the 1st opposite party. A2(a) : Annual statement of GPF of the complainant for the year 1993-94 issued by the 1st opposite party. A2(b) : Annual statement of GPF of the complainant for the year 1994-95 issued by the 1st opposite party. A2(c) : Annual statement of GPF of the complainant for the year 1995-96 issued by the 1st opposite party. A3 : Copy of the letter-dated 29.11.06 issued by the 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : True copy of the application for closure of General Provident Fund dated 18.7.2006 B2 : True copy of the letter dated 17.10.06 of the 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) T.P. Raghavan, Thundiyil Sreenilayam, Angadi.P.O., Ranni. (2) Accountant General, Accountant General Office, Kozhikodu. (3)Headmaster, Govt. H.S.S, Kadumeenchira, Ranni. (4) Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram. (5)Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram. (6) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
