DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 102 of 12-03-2013

Decided on 05-08-2013

Mohamad Mutaq S/o Sh. Abdul Gufur R/o Malerkotla now residing at Village Pharwahi, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

........Complainant

Versus

1. All India Food Union and Allied Workers Union, Arakshan Road, Paharganj, New Delhi through its Regional Office, Punjab.

2. The Assistant Employee Provident Fund Commissioner, Bathinda.

    

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Satvir Singh, counsel for the complainant.

For the opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No. 2.

Opposite party No. 1 exparte.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that he has been serving with opposite party No. 1 from 2000 till 31-08-2012 and was contributing to provident fund which was being deducted by opposite party No. 1 and deposited with opposite party No. 2 alongwith its share. The opposite party No. 2 has issued account No. 28011/196, 28016/178, 32904/118, 33192/122 to opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 terminated the service of the complainant w.e.f. 1-9-2012 and thereafter, he applied for withdrawal of provident fund amount with opposite party No. 2, but till date no amount was paid to him. The complainant alleged that he approached and requested the opposite parties to release his provident fund amount, but to no effect. The complainant also got issued legal notice upon the opposite parties in this regard, but no response was received. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party No. 2 to release the amount lying deposited with it ; both the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost.

2. Registered A.D. notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party No. 1, but despite service, non appeared on its behalf and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against it.

3. The opposite party No. 2 filed its written statement and pleaded that as per their record, contribution in respect of complainant has been received for the period 2008-09 only against account No. 32904/118 although date of coverage of establishment is 12-06-1985 and from the period 2009-10 against account No. 33192/122 although date of coverage of establishment is 1-4-2009 and a sum of Rs. 1072 + 327 = 1399/- is lying deposited in account No. 28016/178 and a sum of Rs. 1803 + 542 = 2345/- is lying deposited in account No. 28011/196 as on 1-4-2012. The opposite party No. 2 has denied that complainant had applied for withdrawal of the amount. It has been pleaded that no Form No. 19 or 10-C for withdrawal have been received nor Form No. 13 has been received for transfer of the amount as the member having more than one account has to submit Form No. 13 for transfer of dues to his present account number. The opposite party No. 2 has further pleaded that suitable reply has been given to the legal notice of the complainant vide letter No. PN/28016 and 28011/5016-17 dated 26-3-2013 requesting the counsel to advise the member to apply in Form No. 19 and 10-C for settlement of dues.

4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. The submission of the complainant is that he has been serving with opposite party No. 1 from 2000 till 31-08-2012 and was contributing to provident fund which was being deducted by opposite party No. 1 and deposited with opposite party No. 2 alongwith its share. The opposite party No. 1 terminated the service of the complainant w.e.f. 1-9-2012 and thereafter, he applied for withdrawal of provident fund amount with opposite party No. 2, but till date no amount was paid to him.

7. On the other hand the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 submitted that the complainant has not impleaded the employer in the present complaint. The two PF codes mentioned by the complainant relate to The Malerkotla Truck Operators Union and one Dinesh Kumar. As per records of opposite party No. 2 contribution in respect of complainant has been received for the period 2008-09 only against account No. 32904/118 although date of coverage of establishment is 12-6-1985 and from the period 2009-10 against account No. 33192/122 although date of coverage of establishment is 1-4-2009 and a sum of Rs. 1072 + 327 = 1399/- is lying deposited in account No. 28016/178 and a sum of Rs. 1803 + 542 = 2345/- is lying deposited in account No. 28011/196 as on 1-4-2012. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 further submitted that the complainant never applied for withdrawal of amount lying deposited with opposite party No. 2 in prescribed forms 19 or 10-C and the claim will be settled within the prescribed period as and when the same is received.

8. In the case in hand, the complainant has impleaded opposite party No. 1 as his employer, but a perusal of file reveals that the documents i.e. Form No. 6-A relating to PF of the complainant has been signed by The President, The Malerkotla Truck Operator Union, Malerkotla as employer. The opposite party No. 1 is exparte. However, the opposite party No. 2 in para No. 2 on merits of its written statement has admitted that contribution in respect of complainant has been received for the period 2008-09 against account No. 32904/118 and for the period 2009-10 against account No. 33192/122 and a sum of Rs. 1072 + 327 = 1399/- is lying deposited in account No. 28016/178 and a sum of Rs. 1803 + 542 = 2345/- is lying deposited in account No. 28011/196 as on 1-4-2012. The complainant has alleged that he has applied for withdrawal of amount to opposite party No. 2 but no copy of any Form No. 19 or 10-C or receipt thereof has been placed on file by him. The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded in para No. 5 of its written statement that suitable reply has been given to the legal notice of the complainant vide letter No. PN/28016 and 28011/5016-17 dated 26-3-2013 requesting the counsel to advise the member to apply in Form No. 19 and 10-C for settlement of the dues, but no copy of such reply has been placed on file by the opposite party No. 2 to prove this version. However, during proceedings of this case, the opposite party No. 2 has placed on file specimen of Form No. 19 and Form No. 10-C. Hence, this act of opposite party No. 2 shows that prior to filing of this complaint, no efforts were made by it to pay the deposited provident fund amount of the complainant to him. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 has disclosed the amount deposited in the account nos. 28016/178 and 28011/196 but has failed to disclose how much amount is lying deposited in the account nos. 32904/118 and 33192/122; however, the opposite party No. 2 is to release the EPF amount lying deposited in all the aforesaid four accounts of the complainant.

9. Thus, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled to the provident fund amount deducted by his employer from his salary and his employer's contribution alongwith interest, if any, as per rules/norms, after submission of necessary Form No. 19 and 10-C duly filled and signed by his employer or authorized official as the claim should be attested and forwarded by employer under whom the member was last employed and if the member is unable to send the application through the employer or duly attested by him, for any reason whatsoever he may forward the claim duly signed in the presence of any one of the following authorized officials and got attested over his official seal :-

   (i) Magistrate (ii) A Gazetted Officer (iii) Postmaster/Sub Postmaster (iv) President of the Village Union (v) President of Village Panchayat where there is no Union Board (vi) Chairman/Secretary/Member of the Municipal/District Local Board (vii) Member of Parliament/Legistative Assembly (viii) Member of Central Board of Trustees/Regional Committee E.P.F. (ix) Manager of the Bank in which the Saving Bank Account is mentioned (x) Head of any Recognised Education Institution (xi) Any authorized official as may be approved by the Commissioner.”

10. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted against opposite party No. 2 with cost of Rs. 500/- and dismissed qua opposite party No. 1. The complainant is directed to submit the Form No. 19 and 10-C duly filled and signed by his employer or any one of the aforesaid authorized official to the opposite party No. 2 , within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite party No. 2 is directed to pay the provident fund amount of the complainant to him deposited in all the four account nos. 32904/118, 33192/122, 28016/178 and 28011/196 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. since due till realization, within next 30 days.

    The complete compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs and the file be consigned to the record.

    Pronounced in open Forum

    05-08-2013 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

    President

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur) (Amarjeet Paul)

    Member Member