DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM : NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 299/2014
D.No._________ Dated: ___________
In the matter of:
SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA
S/o Sh. BANSI DHAR GUPTA,
R/o AD-72, SHALIMAR BAGH,
DELHI-110088. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,
A NATIONALISED BANK THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE, CHANDER MUKHI BUILDING,
NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021.
2. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRUST
THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE, CHANDER MUKHI BUILDING,
NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021.
3. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,
ZONAL OFFICE, NAGPUR THROUGH ITS
ZONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL BUILDING,
2nd FLOOR, LIC SQUARE, KAMPTEE ROAD, NAGPUR-440001.
4. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,
NAGPUR MAIN BRANCH THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER,
ORIENTAL BUILDING,
GROUND FLOOR, LIC SQUARE, KAMPTEE ROAD,
NAGPUR-440001. … OPPOSITE PARTY(ies)
CORAM : SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of decision: 21.11.2016
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. Complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under the consumer protection act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant joined the services of Central Bank of India at New Delhi on 29.09.1972 and his services was transferred from time to time and lastly it was transferred from Central Office, Mumbai of the Bank to Zonal Office, Nagpur in April-2006. In May-2007, the complainant was sent on deputation to work as recovery officer with Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur. At the time of transfer, neither any loan was outstanding in the books of OP against the complainant nor the complainant obtained any loan while working at Zonal Office, Nagpur and Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur. From May-2006 to May-2007 his salary and allowances were paid by OP-3 and the OP-3 also paid to the complainant the subsistence allowance since 14.11.2007, as the complainant falsely implicated in a case by CBI and charge sheet was filed in Special Court, Nagpur and the complainant has been acquitted of the charges by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench vide judgment dated 14.08.2013. However, after conducting the departmental enquiry, the services of the complainant were terminated by the bank on 11.05.2011, against which a Writ Petition No-675/2014 was filed before Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
2. The complainant further alleged that the Provident Fund dues of a retiring officer are generally paid on the same day of the retirement and similarly the PF dues of the officer whose service is terminated are also required to be paid within a reasonable period of 1 month, of course the interest has to be paid for such period. The complainant further alleged that OP-3 deliberately sent the papers of the complainant belatedly for settlement of PF dues vide letter dated 28.11.2011 to Central Office, Mumbai. The Central Office, Mumbai of OP-1 vide letter dated 01.12.2011 sent an account payee cheque no-768852 dated 07.12.2011 for Rs.8,82,907.14 in favour of the complainant towards settlement of PF dues and the cheque was payable at par at all CBS Branches of Central Bank of India. The complainant further alleged that in order to harass and torture the complainant, the cheque was deliberately credited by OP-3 to its own account on 23.12.2011 with OP-4 and this act of OP-3 & 4 is misappropriation and breach of trust. The complainant was facing great financial difficulty as he had to spend a lot of money on the medical treatment of his wife. However, on 10.03.2012 OP-3 gave to the complainant a cheque no-196689 dated 10.03.2012 for Rs.8,82,907.14 drawn on Central Bank of India, Nagpur Main Branch which includes interest upto 11.05.2011. The complainant vide his letter dated 07.03.2013 demanded interest @ 18 % on Rs.8,82,907.14 for delayed period in making payment of his PF dues. However, an amount of Rs.61,705/- on account of interest for delayed period was credited by OP-3 to the complainant’s account with OP-4 on 13.12.2012 @ 8.25% per annum for the period from 12.05.2011 to 10.03.2012.
3. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for interest @ 18% per annum minus Rs.61,705/- already credited by OP and has also prayed for Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and financial sufferings and has also sought an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards legal notice and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. OPs have been contesting the case and filed reply/written statement and submitted that there is no deficiency in service, negligence or unfair trade practice and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The OP further contended that the complainant has raised the issue on false ground with regard to delayed payment of Provident Fund which does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and decided the present complaint.
5. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of the OPs.
6. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit and on the other hand, Sh. Anil Sharma, Chief Manager and Authorised Signatory of Central Bank of India filed his affidavit. The complainant as well as the OP also filed their written arguments.
7. Learned counsel for OP vehemently submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and the disputes of payment of terminal benefits i.e. delayed payment of PF do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for OP relied upon following authorities:
(i) Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. DIR. Health Services, Haryana reported as AIR-2013-SC-3060
(ii) Principal C. Kandaswami Naidu College for Women Vs. Distt. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and Ors. reported as 1993-2-MLJ-117
(iii) Indian Bank Vs. Distt. Consumer Forum reported in Manu/TN/0214/2003
(iv) Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported as 2010-1-SCC-135
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the first judgment as cited above has held that
“by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity of GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any of his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.”
9. This forum has considered the case of the complainant and OP in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant and has also considered the authorities as relied upon by learned counsel for the OP. Thus, relying upon the judgments as cited above, this forum is of opinion that this forum has no jurisdiction and complaint is not maintainable before this forum. The complaint is accordingly dismissed.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 21st November, 2016.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
