BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT (DCFR) No. 103/2012.
THIS THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Secretary, Kakatiya Education Society (R) Canal Road, Manvi, Dist:Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Manvi.
2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, 1st floor Garaladinni Complex, Saath Kacheri Road, Raichur.
3. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Regional Office, 2nd floor, Garaladinni Complex, Saath Kacheri Road, Raichur.
Date of institution :- 28-12-2012.
Date of disposal :- 13-02-2014.
Complainant represented by Sri. K. Srinivas, Advocate
Respondent No-1 represented by Sri. Sateesh. V. Advocate.
Respondent No-2 represented by Sri. Basavaraj Sakri, Advocate.
Respondent No-3 represented by Sri. B.P.H. Advocate.
ORDER
By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondents U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant is running a school at Manvi and regularly remitting monthly EPF amount into Respondent No-1’s bank. Likewise for the month of April-2009 he had remitted Rs.35,933/- to Respondent No-1’s bank through challan No. 7 dt. 05-05-2009 the copy of which was forwarded to Respondent No-3 under covering letter dt. 08-05-2009. However Respondent No-3 sent a letter stating short remittance in EPF, EPS and EDLI contribution in respect of KN/21758 and advised to remit the short amount of Rs.35,932/- or else fine will be imposed as per the provisions of law. On 18-05-2010 the complainant sent reply to Respondent No-3 enclosing xerox copy of challan bearing No-7. Again Respondent No-3 sent letter No. MN/KN/SRO/RCR/ACCTS/2010-11/117/1084 dt. 27-12-2011 stating short remittance by the complainant. Thereafter Respondent No-3 sent one more letter dt. 20-04-2012 imposing penalty on the complainant. The complainant was not required to pay any penalty since he had remitted the EPF amount within time. On enquiry by the complainant with Respondent No-1 the matter was clarified and he delivered a copy of letter dt. 08-06-2009 written by Respondent No-2 to Respondent No-3 with DD for Rs.1,23,565/- sent by Respondent No-1 towards the PF contribution of complainant’s institution. The Respondent No-1 has also issued a certificate to the complainant on 20-05-2010. On 12-03-2012 the complainant wrote a letter enclosing all relevant documents to Respondent No-1 seeking clarification regarding non-crediting the EPF amount for the month of April-2009 to the Respondent No-3. The Respondent No-2 wrote a letter dt. 12-12-2011 to Respondent No-1 stating that they have not received the EPF contribution. However in the said letter Respondent No-1 endorsed by giving clarification about remittance of EPF amount by DD. On 13-07-2012. Assistant General Manager, Regional office, Raichur sent a letter to the complainant stating that the matter was settled without stating mode of settlement. For this the complainant filed an application under RTI Act seeking clarification about mode of settlement for which they advised the complainant to prefer an appeal before the General Manager, SBH Head office, Hyderabad. Accordingly appeal was preferred on 13-08-2012. For this reply was received informing that the matter was referred to CPIO to furnish details within 15 days. Respondent No-3 conveyed the decision of the CPIO in case No. 88/12-13 dt. 16-08-2012 that no settlement made with Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and no letter was received on 19-05-2012 and admitted the receipt of remittance of contribution for the month of March-2009 on 14-05-2009, but no explanation regarding contribution for the month of April-2009. The SBH Raichur vide letter No.AGMII/GR.II/RTI/3826 forwarded a copy of SBH Raichur letter dt. 07-09-2012 to the complainant wherein it is stated that EPF amount was credited to EPF dt. 22-06-12. Accordingly Respondent No-3 confirmed vide letter dt. 15-11-2012 EPF contribution of Rs.35,933/- was credited on 22-06-12. From the above correspondence it is clear that the complainant is not liable to pay fine imposed by Respondent No-3 on the ground of short remittance since the delay in crediting the amount to EPFO account is due to negligence of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 though the complainant had remitted the contribution amount to them on 05-05-2009 itself, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Therefore the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.
3. The Respondent No-1 filed the written version stating that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. The contents of Para-3 of the complaint regarding remittance of Rs.35,933/- on 05-05-2009 towards PF is admitted and rest of the complaint are not within the knowledge of the Respondent No-1. It is normal procedure that the Respondent No-1 after collecting PF amount from the public/institutions has to send the same to the Link branch of EPFO i.e, Respondent No-2 during the first week of succeeding month and in turn the Respondent No-2 will send the same to Respondent No-3. Accordingly after receipt of the amount from the complainant towards its contribution to PF, sent the said amount along with that of other members for the month of May-2009 amounting to Rs.1,23,565/- through an account payee DD to Respondent No-3. As there was some balance left out of Rs.1,340/- in the earlier transaction the same was sent on 12-03-2009 through DD. Accordingly on enquiry by the complainant the Respondent No-1 clarified the above facts to the complainant and delivered the copy of the letter sent to Respondent No-2 by Respondent No-1 on 08-06-2009. Before realization of the proceeds of the DD sent by Respondent No-1 dt. 06-06-2009 the Respondent No-2 sent the DD for Rs.1,23,565/- to Respondent No-1. The Respondent No-1 could not make out the reason for sending the said DD as there was no record with them and more particularly when the DD sent by them was pending for realization. However after realization of the same on 17-09-09 the said amount was returned to Respondent No-2 through a fresh DD dt. 17-09-09 for Rs.1,23,565/- by Respondent No-1. However the Respondent No-2 requested the Respondent No-1 for issue of duplicate DD in place of DD sent on 17-09-09. Accordingly the Respondent No-1 issued another DD dt 20-06-2012 for Rs.1,24,595/- after canceling the earlier unpaid DD. The proceeds of the said DD came to be realized on 21-06-2012. Thus it is clear that Respondent No-1 had sent the DD at the first instance in the month of June-2009 itself and thus there are no laches or deficiency in service on the part of Respondent No-1. As regards the contents of Para-6 of the complaint, the Respondent No-2 on 12-12-2009 wrote a letter to Respondent No-1 regarding non receipt of EPF contribution for the month of May-2009 and Respondent No-1 immediately brought it to the notice of Respondent No-2 about the DD dt. 06-06-2009 for Rs.1,23,565/- which was realized on 02-11-2009. As regards the contents of para-7 & 8 of the complaint, the Respondent No-1 had given all required information and furnished the documents to the complainant including issuance of certificate. The contents of para- 9 & 10 of the complaint are false and baseless. The provisions of the employees’ pension scheme 1995 makes it clear that none of the pensionary benefit under the scheme shall be denied to any members for want of complaints of the requirements by the employees. The alleged letters sent by Respondent No-3 pertains to the short remittance to the contribution of April-2009. Therefore the allegations made by the complainant are imaginary. The complaint is time barred and hence is liable to be dismissed. Considering the payment made to Respondent No-3 by Respondent No-2 and the acceptance of it by the Respondent No-3 the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Complainant is not at all entitled for any damages. There is no cause of action to file the complaint.
4. The Respondent No-2 filed the written version stating that, the contents of the complaint are all imaginary and exaggeration of facts and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable since there is no loss, damage, inconvenience or injury to rights etc., caused or sustained by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-2. The complainant has misread the letter of the Respondent No-3 dt. 28-04-2010. The Respondents have not caused any inconvenience or exposed the complainant to any loss. There was an internal correspondence between the Respondent No-1 & 2 with regard to crediting of PF contribution amount to Respondent No-3 which is not at all concerned to the complainant. In the earlier DD dt. 06-06-2009 the amount mentioned therein mis match as odd amount was sent by way of DD the same was sent back. However after sending the DD by Respondent No-1 for substitution of the accurate amount to the Respondent No-2 it was credited to the account of Respondent No-3. Therefore absolutely there is no negligence on the part of the Respondent No-2. The complainant taking undue advantage of the copies of correspondence obtained by him is trying to misuse the same to make an unlawful gain out of it, which is not fair and proper on his part. The alleged delay caused in remitting the PF contribution to the Respondent No-3 has not at all caused any loss or damage, inconvenience to the complainant. In this context the correspondences made between the complainant and Respondent No-3 may be perused, wherein it is clear that no fine or penalty was imposed on the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-2. The claim of the complaint is time barred. There is no cause of action to file the complaint. All other allegations of the complaint which are not admitted are all deemed to have been false. Therefore the complaint be dismissed with cost.
5. The Respondent No-3 filed the written version stating that, no comments regarding para 1 & 2 of the complaint. No doubt that the complainant has remitted PF remittance of Rs.35,933/- for the month of April-2009 on 05-05-2009 with Respondent No-1 who was to forward it to Respondent No-2 within five days from the date of remittance. But the Respondent No-1 has failed to do so and forwarded the said amount to Respondent No-2 only on 20-06-2012 vide consolidated DD dt. 20-06-2012 for Rs.1,24,955/- in which the complainant’s amount of Rs.35,933/ is included. The Respondent No-2 has credited the said amount to EPFO A/c. on 22-06-2012. Vide letter No. KN/MN/RCR/ACCTS/10-11/117, dt. 28-04-2010 No. MN/KN/SRO/ACCOUNTS/2011-12/117/1084, dt. 27-12-2011 and No. N/PF/SRO/Accts/21758/2011-12, dt. 20-04-2012 informed to remit the short remittance observed on compilation of annual accounts for the years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 for the reasons stated in para-3. But no penalty was imposed on the complainant vide said letters as stated by the complainant and penalty was not received by this office for the delayed period from the complainant. No comments regarding para- 5 to 7 of the complaint. The Respondent No-3 sent a letter No. KN/GLB/RCH/SRO/CASH/2012-13/335,dt.15-11-2012to the complainant confirming the receipt of contribution for the month of April-2009 which was credited to EPFO account on 22-06-12. Since the complainant had remitted for the month of April-2009 EPF dues on 05-05-2009. Respondent No-3 will not impose any penalty on the complainant. As per para 16-A of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 none of the pensionary benefits under the scheme shall be denied to any member beneficiary for want of compliance of the requirement by the employer under sub para(1) of para-3. However the employer shall not be absolved of his liabilities under the scheme. Further the short remittance made by complainant nowhere it is communicated that the employees of the institution are not eligible for the pension scheme. Whatever communication was sent to the complainant regarding short remittance was prior to the receipt of contribution for the month of April 2009 and now the said amount has been credited by Respondent No-2 on 22-06-12. Hence the allegations made on Respondent No-3 are totally false. The employees will be paid interest on contributions for the month of April-2009 and pensionary benefits will not be affected in any way as per scheme provisions and it prayed that Respondent No-3 may be dropped from the case.
6. Complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit which is marked as PW-1 and relied on nineteen documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-19. The Respondent No-1 filed his affidavit which is marked as RW-1 and has not produced any document. Respondent No-3 filed his affidavit evidence which is marked as RW-2 and produced fourteen documents as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-14. Respondent No-2 filed his affidavit evidence which is marked as RW-3 and has not produced any document.
7. Arguments heard on both sides.
8. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents against him.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
3. What order?
9. Our answer on the above points are as under:
(1) In the affirmative.
(2) Partly in the affirmative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
10. The remittance of Rs.35,933/- by the complainant on 05-05-2009 towards PF contribution for the month of April-2009 is admitted by the Respondent No-1.
11. It is the case of the Respondent No-1 that it is the normal procedure that they after collecting PF amount from public/institutions has to send the same to the Link Branch of EPFO i.e, Respondent No-2 during the first week of succeeding month and in turn the Respondent No-2 will send the same to the Respondent No-3 and accordingly after the receipt of the amount from the complainant towards its contribution to PF for the month of April-2009 it sent the PF amount along with that of other members amounting to Rs.1,23,565/- by DD on 06-06-2009 and as there was some balance of Rs.1,340/- left out in the earlier transaction the same was sent to Respondent No-2 on 12-03-2009 by DD and it was clarified by the Respondent No-1 to the complainant and before realization of the proceeds of the DD sent by the Respondent No-1 dt.06-06-2009 the Respondent No-2 sent the DD of Rs.1,23,565/- to Respondent No-1, pending for realization on 17-09-2009 the said amount was returned to Respondent No-2 through a fresh DD on 17-09-2009 for Rs.1,23,565/- however the Respondent No-2 requested the Respondent No-1 to issue duplicate DD in place of said DD sent by them and accordingly the Respondent No-1 issued another DD on 20-06-2012 for Rs.1,24,595/- after cancelling the unpaid DD and the proceeds of the fresh DD came to be realized on 21-06-2012.
12. On the other hand, the Respondent No-2 in his written version stating that earlier DD dt. 06-06-2009 for the amount mentioned therein mis matched as odd amount was sent by way of DD the same was sent back. On receipt of substitution of the accurate amount it was credited to the account of Respondent No-3 and therefore there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-2. It is the case of the Respondent No-3 that PF amount remittance of Rs.35,933/- for the month of April 2009 remitted by the complainant on 05-05-2009 with Respondent No-1 which was to be forwarded to Respondent No-2 within five days from the date of remittance but the Respondent No-2 failed to do so and forwarded the said amount to Respondent No-3 on 20-06-2012 vide consolidated DD dt. 20-06-2012 for Rs.1,24,955/- in which the complainant’s amount of Rs.35,933/- is included.
13. The above aspect is not denied by the Respondent No-1 or Respondent No-2. This makes it very clear that the complainant had sent the amount of Rs.35,933/- towards PF contribution for the month of April-2009 to Respondent No-1 and the Respondent No-1 had sent the said amount along with other contributions of some other institution/public to Respondent No-2 and Respondent No-2 did not send the same in time to Respondent No-3 which was finally remitted by Respondent No-2 to Respondent to-3 on 20-06-2012 which was realized on 21-06-2012. But there was no reason for Respondent No-2 to keep the amount of contribution towards PF amount with him till 20-06-2012. Whatever amount he received he should have remitted immediately it to the Respondent No-3 and if there was any laches or lapses in such contribution on demand by Respondent No-3 the Respondent No-2 could have recovered the same from the complainant or other contributors through Respondent No-1 and could have remitted it to Respondent No-3, but he did not do so, he kept the amount of contribution with him till year 2012. This shows inefficiency and incompetence on the part of the Respondent No-2. This amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Accordingly this point is answered in the affirmative as against Respondent No-2.
POINT NO.2:-
14. As the complainant has proved his case against the Respondent No-2 he is entitled for compensation for the same from Respondent No-2 and under the circumstances of this case granting of compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with cost of the proceedings, which shall be as per final order, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative
POINT NO.3:-
15. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost against Respondent No-2.
The complainant is entitled to recover of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service from the Respondent No-2.
The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings from the Respondent No-2.
The complaint is dismissed against Respondent No-1 & Respondent No-3.
Respondent No-2 is given one month time from the date of this order for making payment of the above said amounts.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on 13-02-14)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
