THE DISTRICT CONSUMAR DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM No.419, Ist Floor,. H.N. Gowda Building, M.B.Road, Kolar-563101 consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/31
Kum. Rosa Smt. Gowramma
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Chairman-Cum-Managing Director
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
CC Filed on 20.04.2009 Disposed on 12.10.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 12th day of October 2009 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 31/2009 Between: 1. Smt. Gowramma, W/o. late Sampangi, Aged about 62 years. 2. Kum. Rosa, D/o. late Sampangi, Aged about 16 years, Being the Minor Rep. by her mother and Natural Guardian Both the complainants 1 and 2 are Residing at Gatta Madamangala Village & Post, Andersonpet, K.G.F. (By Advocate Sri. S. Raghu & others) V/S M/s. Bharath Gold Mines Ltd., Oorgaum Post, K.G.F. Rep: by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Suvarna Bhavan, Oorgaum, K.G.F. .Complainants .Opposite Party ORDERS This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay Rs.5,040/- with interest at 21% p.a. from 25.09.1991 till the date of realization with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the illegal deduction effected by OP on 25.09.1991 out of the Provident Fund of G. Sampangi who was an employee of OP. 2. The material facts of complainants case may be stated as follows: That one G. Sampangi was the employee under OP. Nearly after 30 years of service he opted for voluntary retirement from his service and his request was accepted with effect from 22.07.1991. He received his terminal benefits from OP. It is alleged that while settlement of provident fund amount there was an illegal deduction of Rs.5,040/- towards family pension fund and subsequently neither family pension was granted nor the said illegal deduction was repaid either to G. Sampangi or to complainants on his death. The complainants had filed C.C. No.74/2008 against the present OP and The Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Office, K.R. Puram, Bangalore claiming family pension. That complaint was dismissed after enquiry on 13.02.2009 holding that the complainants had failed to prove that G. Sampangi was a member under the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971. The present OP had contended in the previous case that the deduction of Rs.5,040/- was towards outstanding loan due from G. Sampangi at the time of settlement of provident fund account and by mistake that fact is not specifically mentioned by striking out the printed words Less: adjustment on Family Pension Scheme shown in deduction column. This Forum found that there was no deduction from the salary of G. Sampangi during his lifetime towards family pension scheme. At the time of arguments in that case the Learned Counsel for complainants submitted that the present OP has failed to prove that there was outstanding loan of Rs.5,040/- stated by it, therefore this deduction was to be treated as illegal deduction and the said amount could be ordered to be refunded with exemplary compensation. The previous complaint did not contain such averment. Therefore it was observed in the previous award that while dealing a complaint with such averments different considerations might arise and the complainant may file a fresh complaint if so advised with proper allegations regarding illegal deduction. Thereafter the present complaint is filed alleging that the deduction of Rs.5,040/- is an illegal deduction. 3. The OP did not appear in the present proceedings and did not file any version. The first complainant filed affidavit and copies of documents. We secured file in C.C. No. 74/2008 in which all the relevant documents are available. 4. After considering the records we hold that the complainants have failed to prove that Rs.5,040/- was illegally deducted while settling the provident fund amount in favour of G. Sampangi for the following reasons. G. Sampangi retired from service with effect from 22.07.1991. His provident fund amount was settled on 25.09.1991 and a sum of Rs.24,517/- was paid through cheque after deducting Rs.5,040/-. G. Sampangi died on 26.09.1995. Therefore nearly for four years G. Sampangi was alive after the alleged illegal deduction. There is no evidence that the said G. Sampangi objected for the said deduction during settlement of P.F. amount or subsequently in his lifetime. Therefore if really this was an illegal deduction G. Sampangi would have objected for it during his lifetime. In the previous order it was observed that the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 was applicable to G. Sampangi and under the said scheme there was an option for an employee to opt for that scheme and to pay the contribution out of the monthly salary. The salary slips produced in that case did not show any deduction towards Family Pension Scheme. In that event, one can say that the said employee was not at all a member of that scheme as he had not opted for that scheme. Therefore there was no question of deducting any amount towards the adjustment of family pension fund. Therefore we hold that the deduction of Rs.5,040/- must have been towards outstanding loan payable by employee at the time of his voluntary retirement. Apart from it, we can say that the complaint is hopelessly barred by time. The alleged illegal deduction is said to have taken place on 25.09.1991. The present complaint is filed on 20.04.2009 after 18 years from the date of alleged illegal deduction. For the above reasons we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 12th day of October 2009. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
