BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-23/2015
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).
Mr. Chandan Chakrabarty,
S/O- Late B.K. Chakrabarty,
At-Shantinagar,P.O- Budharaja,
P.S-Ainthapali,Dist-Sambalpur. …..Complainant
Vrs.
- BISWA,
At-Danipali, P.O- Budharaja,Sambalpur.
- EPFO, ODISHA,
Employee Provident Fund Office,
Panposh Road, Bhabisyanidhi Bhawan,
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant:- Sri. B.S. Mishra, Advocate,
- For the O.P-1 :- None.
- For the O.P-2 :- None.
DATE OF HEARING : 01.03.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 08.03.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant was an employee of BISWA in the district of Sambalpur, Odisha. He had been deposited his Provident Fund share at BISWA Office vide P.F No-OR/RKL/8636/000/0003795 from dtd. 01.12.2010 to 31.07.2013 and it was deposited to EPFO by the BISWA who is the principal employer. After leaving the said Organisation the Complainant is with no job since two years, wanted to draw the PF amount lying with the EPFO. After several requests to the O.P-2 for the settlement of Pf amount he did not responding to it. The Complainant has attached the copies of appointment letter and salary slip of the month of December-2010 for perusal of this commission. The Complainant claims that the acts of the O.Ps are amount to unfair Trade Practice along with deficiency in service for which they shall be penalised and required to pay compensation as prayed in the petition.
The O.P-1 & 2 despite of service of notice they did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P-1 & 2 are ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can be invoked against the Provident Fund Commissioner?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, being Central Government, held to be rendering 'service' within the meaning and scheme of the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, under the Act and the scheme discharges statutory functions for running the scheme. It has not, in any way, been delegated with the sovereign powers of the State so as to hold it as a Central Government, being not the authority rendering the 'service' under the Act. The Commissioner is a separate and distinct entity, it cannot legally claim that the facilities provided by the 'scheme' were not "service" or that the benefits under the scheme being provided were free of charge. The definition of "consumer" under the Act includes not only the person who hires the 'services' for consideration but also the beneficiary, for whose benefit such services are hired. Even if it is held that administrative charges are paid by the Central Government and no part of it is paid by the employee, the services of the Provident Fund Commissioner in running the scheme shall be deemed to have been availed of for consideration by the Central Government for the benefit of employees who would be treated as beneficiary within the meaning of that word used in the definition of consumer. The Supreme Court in M/s. Sprinq Meadown Hospital & Anr. vs. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia & Anr. [JT 1998 (2) SC 620,it has already held that the "consumer" means a person who hires or avails of any services and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails the services. In this regard this Commission specifically held "In the present case:- it is a 'service' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) and the member a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. This matter is well settled in the case of “Regional Provident Fund ... vs Shiv Kumar Joshi” on 14 December, 1999 by Supreme Court of India, reported in [AIR 2000 (SC) 331] . As the O.P-1 has deducted the amount towards provident fund every month from the salary of the Complainant and thus make it deposited with the O.P-2 they are liable to return it after his retirement of leaving services from the employer. But the O.Ps failed to reimburse the amount which is exclusively related to the Complainant. As inferred from the above the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice to the Complainant .Hence we order as under:-
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are directed to settle the Provident Fund claim amount and reimburse to the Complainant with 9% interest per annum on this amount from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., dtd. 17.04.2015 till its realisation." All the orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 8th day of March-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
-Sd/- -Sd/-
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT.
Dictated and Corrected
By me.
-Sd/-
PRESIDENT.
