Date of Filing: 17/09/2011

        Date of Order:30/11/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  30^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1723 OF 2011

Shri. K.M.Ganapathy,

S/o. Mandanna,

Aged About 29 years,

No.732/A, 16^th Main,

9^th Cross, BSK 3^rd Stage,

S.B.M.Colony, Bangalore-54.

(Rep. by Sri.S.R.Kulkarni, Advocate)                                   ….  Complainant.

V/s

1. The Chief Manager,

Sodexho pass Servicer,

No.110/3, M.Krishnappa Layout,

Opp. To Indian Oil Corporation,

Petrol Bank, Lalbagh Road,

Bangalore-560 027.

2. The Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund

Organization, No.341, Bhavishya Nidhi

Bhavan, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051.

3. The Manager,

ICICI Bank Limited, R.T.Nagar Branch,

No.5, P & T Colony, Main Road,

Bangalore-560 032.

(Rep. by Sri.Sumangala A Swamy, Advocate)                   …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the third Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,95,773/-, are necessary:-

The complainant was working under the first opposite party and had PF Account from 09.12.2003.  The PF was deducted from his salary and paid to the concern.  The complainant resigned from services on 10.09.2007 and was relived on 15.09.2007.  The complainant is entitled to the PF and EPS dues.  He made representation in this regard.  It has not been paid.  Hence the complainant issued notice to the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 on 01.12.2010.  The 2^nd opposite party on 28.01.2010 has written to the complainant with three copies of banking information and intimated that, it has already settled in the year 2007 and 2008, the PF amount of Rs.30,650/- and EPS amount of Rs.15,123/- were sent by cheques to the opposite party No.3 which has not cleared or cancelled till September-2010 and requested him to re-submit an application for authorization of PF and EPS dues duly attested by opposite party No.1.  Hence the complainant has issued the notice to the opposite party No.3 on 31.03.2008.  Even then the opposite party No.3 is withholding the PF and EPS dues.  The opposite party No.3 has not encashed the cheque.  Hence the complaint.

2(a).  In brief the version of the 1^st opposite party are:-

          The employment of the complainant with the opposite party, his reliving, his application for settling the PF counter signed and sending it to PF authority are all admitted.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied. 

2(b).  In brief the version of the second opposite party are:-

          To the notice dated: 01.12.2010 from the complainant this opposite party has replied on 22.12.2010 and asked the complainant to submit an application for pre-authorization for PF and EPS dues duely attested by opposite party No.1 along with cancelled cheque and bank detailed, but that has not been done till date.  The opposite party No.2 has settled the PF and EPS dues by sending the cheques dated: 31.03.2008 to the opposite party No.3 in the complainant’s SB account. 

2(c).  in brief the version of the third opposite party are:-

          There is no consumer-trader relationship between the complainant and this opposite party.  This opposite party has not at all received any cheque/s dated: 31.01.2008 from any persons.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.

3.       To substantiate the respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits.  The arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B):        As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant was in the service of the opposite party No.1 between 09.12.2003 and 15.09.2007.  He had a PF account No.MH/44256/1593.  After his relieving on the application of the complainant for PF and EPS it was countersigned by the opposite party No.1 and it was sent to opposite party No.2 for release of the amount and payment of the amount in favour of the complainant. 

7.       The opposite party No.2 has stated that it had sent cheque No.655670 for Rs.30,650/- towards PF and cheque No.74289 for Rs.15,123/- towards EPS dated: 31.03.08 to the opposite party No.3 and it has not been encashed by opposite party No.3.  The opposite party No.3 in unequivocal terms has stated that it has not received any cheques from the 2^nd opposite party nor encashed the same.  There is no material to show that the cheque has been received by the 3^rd opposite party.  When that is the case the question of 3^rd opposite party returning the cheque amount or encashing the cheque does not arise.  Even otherwise so far as the opposite party No.3 is concerned the complainant has not purchased any service from opposite party No.3 nor there is any such relationship exists between the complainant and the opposite party No.3.  Hence the case against opposite party No.3 does not survive.  In this case admittedly all the documents were filled and sent to opposite party No.2, but opposite party No.2 has not sent the cheques to the complainant, but all exes that it has sent it to opposite party No.3 for which there is no material.  Now opposite party No.2 wants the complainant to submit a fresh application with the cheques and counter signature of opposite party No.1.  When the cheques itself is not there how can the complainant re-submit the cheques?  Why the complainant has to re-submit a fresh application for PF and EPS?  Admittedly the cheques are not encashed, it is purport to have been issued by the 2^nd opposite party, the cheque number are there, hence opposite party No.2 has to issue fresh cheques stating that the earlier cheques has been lost and hence they can send the cheques directly to the complainant instead of sending it to opposite party No.3.  Already records have been submitted by the complainant.  Hence to this extent there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.  Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.       The complaint is Allowed-in-part. 

2.       The opposite party No.2 is directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.45,773/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.03.2008 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.

3.       The opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the complainant.

4.        The opposite party No.2 is directed to send the amounts as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 above to the complainant through DD by registered post acknowledgment due and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.

5.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 30^th Day of November 2011)

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT