This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing, the complainant appeared in person, in the presence of Sri G.Hareender Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties 2, 3 and 5; Notice of opposite party No.1 served and called absent; opposite party No.4 appeared in person; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this forum passed the following:

ORDER

(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member)

            This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant joined in APSEB in the year 1965, later the same was divided into two organizations namely APTRANSCO and APGENCO and now into six entities, the complainant retired as Chief General Manager in APEPDCL in the month of February, 2003.  The complainant further submitted that he is a provident fund subscriber from the year 1969 and allotted with BGPF A/c. No. AB 1105, the accounts are being maintained by APSEB.  The complainant worked at several places in several positions as Junior Accounts officer in Suryapet, Electricity Revenue Office up to June, 1984 and later transferred to Operation Division, Khammam.  During September, 1986 he received BGPF account slip for the year 1984-85 from the Deputy Chief Controller of Accounts, Vidhyth Soudha, Hyderabad vide letter No.FA & CCA/GPF/A/c slip 84-85/42-52, dt.30-9-1986, wherein the particulars have been shown as

2.     On verification of the slip, it is noticed by the complainant that an amount of Rs.1550/- was shown as withdrawn, as he has not withdrawn any amount from his Provident Fund Account.  Immediately, he made representation on 21-10-1986 to the Deputy Chief Controller of Accounts, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad, who is the account maintaining authority stating the fact of non drawal and requested to rectify the error and also to communicate revised slip and also reminded to the Deputy CCA on 10-8-1988.  As there is no result, the complainant made representation to the SE (operation), Khammam from whose office the schedule is being sent depicting the fact and requested to send a revised schedule or letter to the Accounts maintaining authority for rectification of the error.  The complainant went on corresponding with SE, operation, Khammam, Deputy CCA, Accounts Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad (dt.19-2-1998) Asst. Accounts Officer, ERO, AP Transco, Suryapeta, (dt.12-5-1999), Divisional Engineer operation, Suryapeta, (dt.29-5-1999) and Divisional Engineer operation, Nalgonda, (dt.26-8-1999).  The Divisional Engineer, Operation, Suryapeta in his letter No.PAS/1340/01, dt.18-9-2001 informed that Sri.M.Raghunadha Rao drawn an amount of Rs.1,000/- as loan during 05/84 and the same was recovered from him at Rs.50/- per month from the salary and the balance withdrawal of Rs.550/- is not traceable. 

3.            The complainant further submitted that he addressed a letter in the matter to the SE, APNPDCL, Khammam enclosing the copy of the above letter, requesting to send the revised schedule for rectification of the mistakes, so as to enable him to draw the wrongly debited amount along with interest from last 19 years.  The complainant submitted that he reminded the matter on 20-1-2003 as he is going to retire on 28-2-2003 voluntarily and he was forced to draw BGPF amount without adding the debited amount as well as the interest thereon.  On 4-3-2004 the complainant served a notice to the SE operations, Khammam through his counsel, who in turn addressed a letter to the DE, Operation, Nalgonda and was silent. 

4.             The complainant made representation to the SE, Operation, Khammam on 14-10-2003 which resulted in moving his file.  The Deputy Chief Controller Accounts, APGENCO, addressed a letter to SE, Operation, NPDCL, Khammam on 10-11-2003, as there is no action either from SE, operation, Khammam or Deputy CCA, APGENCO,, but the Chief General Manager (Expenditure), APEPDCL went on corresponding on the matter with the FA and CCA, APGENCO and Asst. Accounts Officer, ERO, Suryapeta,   Vidyut Soudha and also gave a fax message on 30-4-2004.  In reply to the fax message, AAO, ERO, Suryapet in their letter Estt./300/04, dt.03-06-04 informed that the cash book of 5/84 has been verified thoroughly to find out the payment of Rs.1,550/- to K.Raghunadha Rao, Ex.Jr.Accounts officer, ERO, Suryapeta, but there is no payment made is available in the cash book, hence the withdrawal of mount is wrongly entered in the accounts slip for 1984-85 and also suggested to credit the amount with copies to the D.E., operation, CPDCL, Nalgonda and Suryapeta.  The complainant further submitted that on receipt of letter from AAO, ERO, Suryapeta, the Chief General manager (Expenditure), APEPDCL, Vizag addressed a letter bearing No.863/2004, dt.30-8-2004 enclosing a copy received from AAO, ERO, Suryapeta to FA and CCA, APGENCO for taking further action in the matter as per the guidelines vide FA and CCA, APGENCO GPF Lr.No.354/03, dt.22-4-2003 for rectification of GPF balance prior to 31-3-2002 at APGENCO. 

5.            It is also submitted that the FA and CCA, APGENCO who ought to have considered all the material on record and protract correspondence and have to arrange payment of erroneously debited amount along with interest as per the guidelines, simply remitted back the matter to the CGM (Expenditure), APEPDCL vide his Lr.No.FA and CCA, APGENCO/GPF/D.No.1313/04, dt.30-10-2004 stating that he is not in receipt of letter from AAO, ERO, Suryapeta invalidating the copy enclosed and with an advise that the further correspondence made through Divisional Engineer Operation, Nalgonda where the descripency has been made with factual.     

6.            The complainant submitted that being a subscriber to the BGPF A/c.No.1105, he became a consumer depositing his money out of his earnings with the financial advisor and chief controller of accounts, APGENCO who has maintained accounts properly in respect of deposits made by the subscriber and has to communicate yearly statements, they have to take steps for rectification of error, finally the complainant was forced to draw the GPF balance without adding the wrongly debited amount of Rs.1,550/- in the year, 1984-85 and interest thereon.  The FA and CCA of Accounts, APGENCO and as well as SE, operation, Khammam failed to take action, caused annoyance/ agony to him for the last 25 years.  Having no other go, the complainant is compelled to file the present complaint. 

7.            On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Exs.A.1 to A.14.

Ex.A.1      - Copy of GPF slip 1984-85 from FA & CCA/VS/Hyd.

                 No.4252, dt.30-9-1986.

Ex.A.2      - Copy of letter to Dy.CCA/A/cs/VS/Hyd, dt.21-10-1986

Ex.A.3      - Copy of letter to SE Operation, NPDCL, Khammam,

                  dt.10-8-1988.

Ex.A.4      - Copy of letter No.DE/O/SRPT/PAS/1340/01,

                  dt.18-9-2001.

Ex.A.5      - Copy of letter to SAO/Operation, Khammam,

                  dt.20-1-2003.    

Ex.A.6      - Copy of letter No.CGM (E)/VSP/AAO/GPF/1125/03,

                 DT.23-10-2003 to FA & CCA/A/CS, APGENCO, VS,

                 Hyderabad. 

Ex.A.7      - Copy of letter to SE/operation, Khammam,

                  dt.29-11-2003.

Ex.A.8      - copy of legal notice, dt.4-3-2001 from G.Satyaprasad,

                 Advocate, Khammam.

Ex.A.9      - Copy of letter from Dy.CCA/A/CS/VS/Hyd, to

                  Dy.CCA/A/CS/APGENCO/VS, Hyderabad No.SAO/F &

                  P/GPF/255/16-3-2004.

Ex.A.10    - Copy of FA & CCA/A/CS/APGENCO No.GPF/408/04,

                  dt.23-3-2004 to SE, Operation, Khammam.

Ex.A.11    - Copy of letter from SAO, O/o. CGM(E)/VSP to SAO,

                  Nalgonda, No.AAP/GPF/510/04, dt.7-5-2004.

Ex.A.12    - Copy of letter from AAO/ERO/SRPT No.ESTT/300/04,

                 DT.3-6-2004.

Ex.A.13    - Copy of letter No.CGM(E)/VST/AAO (Pen.)/863/04,

                 dt.30-8-2004 to FA & CCA (A/cs). APGENCO, V.S.

                 Hyderabad.

Ex.A.14    - Copy of letter No.FA & CCA (A/CS)/ APGENCO/GPF/

                 1330/04, dt.30-10-2004 to CGM/E/APEPDCL,

                 Vishakapatnam.

8.            On being noticed, the opposite party No.1 called absent.  Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed counter. In their counter, opposite parties 2 and 3 submitted that the complainant found the error of wrong debit in the year 1986 itself when the slip was issued by the concerned A.O., he retired voluntarily from APEPDCL as CGM on 28-2-2003 and accepted final withdrawal of GPF, so that it is construed that all adjustments of the final withdrawal are brought for full settlement of claim.  The complainant was forced to draw the BGPF amount without adding the debited amount as well as the interest thereon, in this connection it is to mention that the complainant retired from the service of CGM of APEPDCL.  The authorization of final withdrawals implies that all adjustments are taken care of, the complainant had to settle all of the terminal benefit issues from the corporation from where he voluntarily retired and also submitted that every employee of APSEB has to join in GPF, it was mandatory, the GPF members are as per terms of employment, they will not be treated as consumers. Hence, requested to direct the complainant to settle the issue with APEPDCL and also to drop opposite parties 2 and 3 from this case as they are not concerned party to settle the issue and also submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is not filed within two years from the date of his voluntary retirement from his service i.e. 28-2-2003. 

9.            On receipt of notice by the opposite party No.4, on their behalf, SAO/GPF/APGENCO appeared and filed counter.  In their counter, it is submitted that APGENCO is successive entity from APSEB from 1-2-1999 as a result of reforms, BGPF liabilities prior to 1-2-1999 are transferred to APGENCO through an unfounded liability amount of Rs.230.12 crores, bonds were issued by APGENCO to every corporation to meet any liability of GPF that relates to the period prior to 1-2-1999 and also requested to drop opposite party No.4 from the case as APGENCO is not a party to settle the issue, on account of wrong debit in GPF slip of K.Raghunadha Rao in the year 1986 and the arrears are to be payable by APGENCO to any corporation should also be claimed by the respective corporation. 

10.             During the pendency of the case, the complainant filed an I.A.82/2010 praying the Forum to implead Chief General Manager, Expenditure, Corporate office, APEPDCL, Vishakhapatnam-20 as opposite party No.5 to these proceedings.  Upon hearing the arguments on both sides, the petition is allowed, Chief General Manager, Expenditure, Corporate office, APEPDCL, Vishakhapatnam-20, is added as opposite party No.5 to these proceedings. 

11.               On receipt of notice, opposite party No.5 appeared through their counsel and filed counter. 

12.               In the counter, opposite party No.5 submitted that the complainant retired as CGM in APEPDCL in the year, 2003, the six entities formed in the year 2000 onwards, the wrong entry was made in the year 1984-85, by that time the relevant accounts were held with the then APSEB and after formation of APEPDCL in the year 2000, the accounts of employees of APEPDCL being maintained from the year 2002, when the records are not available in the office of opposite party No.5, the question of seeking relief against the opposite party No.5 does not arise.  The present transaction pertaining to the year 1984-85 for which APEPDCL is nothing to do with the said transaction and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

13.               The counsel for complainant submitted their written arguments. Heard the arguments on both sides. 

14.               Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments, now the points that arose for consideration are,

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

2. Whether the complaint is filed within the period of limitation?

3. Whether the opposite parties have rendered deficiency of service?

4. To what relief?

Point No.1: 

15.               The case of the complainant is that he joined in APSEB in 1965, later the same was divided into two organizations and now into six entities and the complainants is a provident fund subscriber from 1969 and he was allotted BGPF account NO.AB 1105.  As per the complainant,  he found there was a wrong debit entry in his BGPF account, he retired from APEPDCL as CGM on 28-2-2003, he was forced to draw BGPF amount without adding  wrong debit entry amount as well as the interest thereon, for that the opposite parties No.2 and 3 taken an objection that the complainant retired voluntarily from service as CGM of APEPDCL, CGM is the higher authority in accounts department and there would not be any possibility to accept final withdrawal without any adjustments, the complainant failed to do his duty as CGM as he could depute any of his concern officials to settle the issue as and when he was working as CGM in APEPDCL, so he is not a consumer.  For this point, it is sufficient to say that issue related to Provident Fund are concerned under the scope of Consumer Protection Act, there are number of cases have been dealt with by the consumer Fora related to the issues relating to PF and it is also held that the employer as well as the PF authorities are covered under the Consumer Protection Act in relation to the payment of PF dues of an employee.  Thus we are answering this point accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2: 

16.     Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 taken an objection that the complaint is not filed within two years from the date of voluntary retirement from his service.  To support their contention they relied on the case law reported in Haryana Urban Development authority and another Vs. Manju Sundra I (2011) CPJ 52. 

17.               From the documents and material available on record, we observed that the complainant made correspondence with the opposite parties before his voluntary retirement and also from the date of his voluntary retirement.  The opposite parties throwing their liability from one to another even after receiving notice from the counsel for the complainant. And also observed that as per Ex.A.14, the opposite party No.4 addressed a letter to opposite party No.5 that the GPF account slip in respect of the complainant, Ex-JAO, for the year 1984-85 has been issued to the DE/OP/Nalgonda where he worked as ERO, Suryapeta for the said period and also the discrepancy has been made, hence clarification/ confirmation has to be made through DE/OP Nalgonda and thereafter kept silent.  The opposite parties, till filing of the complaint have neither rejected the claim nor did accept the claim of the complainant.  As per the settled law, the cause of action will arise from the date of repudiation.  In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the opposite parties. Till the time the claim preferred by the complainant was not disposed by the opposite parties, one way or the other, the cause of action would be continuous. The same was observed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in United India Insurance Company Vs. R.Piyarall Import and Export I (2010) CPJ NC.  The case law submitted by the opposite parties 2 and 3, not attracted the facts of the present case.  In view of the above, this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

Point No.3:           

18.               We have carefully gone through the material on record and observed that the opposite party No.4 in their counter submitted that APGENCO is a successive entity of APSEB, BGPF liabilities prior to 1-2-1999 are transferred to APGENCO through an unfunded liability amounts to Rs.230.12 crores, bonds were issued by APGENCO to every corporation to meet any liability of GPF that relates to the period prior to 1-2-1999.  As per Ex.A.14 letter addressed by opposite party No. 4 to opposite party No.5 and as per the complainant, the discrepancy happened in the year 1984-85 where the complainant worked as ERO/Surypeta for the said period.   As such the APCPDCL PF trust is liable for the amount as claimed by the complainant.  From the counter of opposite party No.4, there were sufficient investments in bonds with APCPDCL PF trust to meet the liability of GPF relates to the period prior to 1-2-1999.  From the above there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and they failed to settle the claim of the complainant by showing the liability of each other.   In view of the above facts and circumstance of the case, the complaint is fit to be allowed.  

Point No.4:

19.               In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties 1 to 5 to pay wrongly debited amount of Rs.1550/- from the BGPF account of complainant in the year, 1984-85, along with interest as per rules, within one month and also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards costs.  We direct the opposite parties to pay the amount within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 9% P.A. till the actual payment. 

          Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 30^th day of March, 2011.

PRESIDENT             MEMBER

DISTRICT CONSUEMRS FORUM,

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for complainant:- None

Witnesses examined for opposite parties:- None

Exhibits marked for Complainant:

Ex.A.1      - Copy of GPF slip 1984-85 from FA & CCA/VS/Hyd.

                 No.4252, dt.30-9-1986.

Ex.A.2      - Copy of letter to Dy.CCA/A/cs/VS/Hyd, dt.21-10-1986

Ex.A.3      - Copy of letter to SE Operation, NPDCL, Khammam,

                  dt.10-8-1988.

Ex.A.4      - Copy of letter No.DE/O/SRPT/PAS/1340/01,

                  dt.18-9-2001.

Ex.A.5      - Copy of letter to SAO/Operation, Khammam,

                  dt.20-1-2003.    

Ex.A.6      - Copy of letter No.CGM (E)/VSP/AAO/GPF/1125/03,

                 DT.23-10-2003 to FA & CCA/A/CS, APGENCO, VS,

                 Hyderabad. 

Ex.A.7      - Copy of letter to SE/operation, Khammam,

                  dt.29-11-2003.

Ex.A.8      - copy of legal notice, dt.4-3-2001 from G.Satyaprasad,

                 Advocate, Khammam.

Ex.A.9      - Copy of letter from Dy.CCA/A/CS/VS/Hyd, to

                  Dy.CCA/A/CS/APGENCO/VS, Hyderabad No.SAO/F &

                  P/GPF/255/16-3-2004.

Ex.A.10    - Copy of FA & CCA/A/CS/APGENCO No.GPF/408/04,

                  dt.23-3-2004 to SE, Operation, Khammam.

Ex.A.11    - Copy of letter from SAO, O/o. CGM(E)/VSP to SAO,

                  Nalgonda, No.AAP/GPF/510/04, dt.7-5-2004.

Ex.A.12    - Copy of letter from AAO/ERO/SRPT No.ESTT/300/04,

                 DT.3-6-2004.

Ex.A.13    - Copy of letter No.CGM(E)/VST/AAO (Pen.)/863/04,

                 dt.30-8-2004 to FA & CCA (A/cs). APGENCO, V.S.

                 Hyderabad.

Ex.A.14    - Copy of letter No.FA & CCA (A/CS)/ APGENCO/GPF/

                 1330/04, dt.30-10-2004 to CGM/E/APEPDCL,

                 Vishakapatnam.

Exhibits marked for opposite parties:-

-Nil-

PRESIDENT      MEMBER

DISTRICT CONSUEMRS FORUM,

KHAMMAM