Haryana

Panchkula

CC/117/2020

SHAFI MOHAMMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER HARYANA. - Opp.Party(s)

VIRINDER SINGH

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	117 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	04.03.2020
Date of Decision	:	27.02.2023

 

 

Shafi Mohammed @ Safi Mohammed aged 46 years son of Shri Faqiriya, resident of House No.144, Village Billa, Tehsil and District Panchkula.                                                                                                                                                                ..….Complainant

                                Versus                                                                  

1. Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana, Bhavisya Nidhi Bhawan, SCO No.5-8, Sector-12, (New Main Sectt.) Karnal-132001(Haryana)

 

2.  Principal BRS Dental College & Hospital, at Sultanpur, District      Panchkula(Haryana).

 

3. The Chairman, B.R.S.Dental College & Hospital, at Sultanpur, District Panchkula(Haryana)

 

                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Virender Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                         Sh. Gaurav Khera, Advocate for OP No.1.

                         Ops No.2 & 3 already given up vide order dated                              16.12.2020.

                               

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant was employed as peon with OP No.2/3 w.e.f. 01.10.1992 to 10.04.2009; he was retrenched on 10.04.2009 as sufficient work was not available with OP No.2/3; no compensation was paid to the complainant by his employer; the complainant was a member of Employees Provident Fund(hereinafter referred to as EPF)  and EPF Pension scheme vide his EPF account no.HR/8904/5, wherein monthly deductions from his salary was credited. The said EPF number was maintained by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Haryana at Karnal. It is stated that the employee, as per para 72(5)(a) & (b) of the Employee’s Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Scheme was required to get his claim application for payment of Provident Fund duly filled &  forward his application seeking release of EPF payment of amount within five days, to the EPF Commissioner, after its  attestation from his employer. As per para 72(5)(d) of said scheme 1952, if the applicant/employee is unable to send his claim application through his employer after its due attestation for any reasons, whatsoever he  is allowed to forward the same directly to the EPF Commissioner. It is stated that the complainant was not able to get his claim form/ application attested from his employer i.e. OP No.2 & 3 because he was not permitted to enter the college premises and thus, he had sent his claim form/application directly, seeking the release of payment of EPF amount, to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana, Karnal vide speed post dated 24.01.2020. It is stated that the claim application seeking release of his EPF amount was not settled by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana, Karnal(OP No.1), who returned the same vide Account section/PPO/HR/ 8904-5 dated 19.02.2020 to the complainant with the objections that member name differ, father name, DOB, DOJ and DOL not mentioned.  It is stated that the Ops have failed to perform their parts of duties, thus, were deficient in rendering services to the complainant. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable as the consumer Commission at Panchkula has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as the office of OP No.1 is situated at Karnal, Haryana; that the complaint is not maintainable against the additional Central Government Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana(OP No.1) because the Central Board of Trustees is the necessary party as per provisions  of Section5(c) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint on merits, it is admitted that the EPF account no.HR/KNL/8904/5 pertains to the complainant as per record maintained by OP No.1. It is submitted that the balance in the said account of the complainant as on 1.04.2019 is Rs.1,26,631/-(Employee Share)Rs.97,769+ (Employer Share) Rs.28,862. It is submitted that the complainant had not given any reasons that his employer had not attested his claim form/application or that there was any difficulty in getting his application form attested from his employer. It is stated that the claim form as received from the complainant was returned to him on 19.02.2020 to resubmit the claim form after completing in all respects. It is submitted that the application form sent by the complainant was found lacking in several particulars. It is submitted that EPF i.e. OP No.1 has a system of solving the grievances through physical application and online portal but the complete matter of the complainant was not in the knowledge of the EPFO and thus, application form having incomplete was returned to him and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

                The learned counsel for the complainant has  given up OPs No.2 to 4  by making separate statement dated 16.12.2020.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Annexure R/A and closed the evidence.

                During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered the ledger copy of EPF account of complainant, which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’ for the proper adjudication of the case.

4.             We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the entire record including the written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, the sum of EPF of complainant amounting to Rs.1,26,631/- has already been paid by OP No.1 to him in the month of November 2020 during the pendency of the present complaint. Now, the short controversy between the parties is qua the granting of interest on the said EPF amount of Rs.1,26,631/-. Pertinently, as per ledger copy of EPF account of complainant( Mark ‘A’) which has been procured under RTI Act, a sum of Rs.97769+28862=Rs.1,26,631/- was lying deposited in the EPF account of the complainant as on November 2020, whereas the said amount of EPF has been paid to him in the month of November 2020 i.e. after a period of about 20 months, so, there can be no reason, much less adequate and plausible, to deny the complainant qua his right to claim the interest on the said EPF amount w.e.f. April 2019 till actual realization.

6.             Qua the lapses and deficiencies on the part of OP No.1, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) of the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the interest on the amount of Rs.1,26,631/- w.e.f. April 2019 till actual realization along with adequate compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and litigation charges.

7.             The OP No.1 has contested the complaint taking the plea that complainant does not fall under the category of consumer. This plea is rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi in Civil Appeal No.411 of 1997 decided on 14.12.1999.

8.             On merits, the learned counsel on behalf of the OP No.1 reiterating the averments made in the written statement as also in the affidavit(Annexure R-A) vehemently contended that the application form sent by the complainant seeking release of EPF amount was found lacking on several counts and that  the same i.e. application form was not got attested from his employer. The learned counsel contended that there was no lapse or deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 because member name differ-Shafi Mohamad and father name with the OP No.1, was not matching. Further, it is contended that the application form was found lacking qua particulars like date of birth, date of joining etc.

9.             Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel submitted that now, the EPF amount as payable to the complainant has already been paid to him, thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed having no merits in it.

10.            As discussed above, the complainant is entitled to the payment of interest, at the rate which is applicable in the EPF matter, on the amount of Rs.1,26,631/- w.e.f. April 2019 till actual realization.  Regarding  the lapse and deficiencies on the part of the OP No.1, it is pertinent to mention here that the claim application form (Annexure C-3) as sent by the complainant seeking the release of his EPF amount, to OP No.1 was returned back raising the objections qua claim application was not attested by his employer and  the father’s name, date of birth and date of joining were not mentioned in the said application but the EPF amount  i.e. 1,26,631/- has been paid by the OP No.1 to the complainant without any clarification as to how the said objections were removed by the complainant. It is not the case of the OP No.1 that it had taken up the matter with the employer of the complainant i.e. OPs No.2 & 3 seeking the clarifications qua the objections as raised vide its letter dated 19.02.2020(Annexure C-1). Moreover, no such correspondence is made available on record, from which it can be inferred that the OP No.1 has released the payment of EPF amount, after removal of the objections as raised by  it vide its letter dated 19.02.2020(Annexure C-1). From these facts it is clear that the objections raised by OP No.1 vide its letter dated 19.02.2020(Annexure C-1) were not valid and justified and in our considered opinion, it could have dealt with application of the complainant on the basis of the record itself, maintained with it. The complainant vide his application dated 24.01.2020(Annexure C-2) has clearly mentioned that he was not able to get his claim application attested from his employer. Therefore, the OP no.1 was deficient while rendering services to the complainant; hence the complainant is entitled to relief.  

11.            In the light of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed with the directions to OP No.1 to make the payment of interest on the amount of Rs.1,26,631/- to the complainant at the rate,  which is admissible under the EPF Rules, w.e.f. April 2019 till actual realization i.e. November 2020. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment.

12.            The OP No.1  shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OP No.1. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 27.02.2023

 

 

 

          Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini             Satpal

                  Member                  Member                          President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President