Orissa

Debagarh

CC/53/2020

Sri Purna Ch. Mishra, aged 64 years, S/O-Late Chintamani Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Coperative Agriculture Rural Development Bank - Opp.Party(s)

29 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEOGARH

C.C NO- 53/2020

                  Present;-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Sri Purna Chnadra Mishra, aged about 64 years

S/O-Late Chintamani Mishra,

At-Mahuldhipa Sahi, Ward No-11,

PO/PS/Dist-Deogarh.                                                                                                          …..Complainant.

Vrs.

1. Co-operative Agriculture

          Rural Development Bank,

         (Through Sri N.C.Naik, Sub Asst. Registrar )

          Co-operative Societies-

         In charge Secretary Card, Bank Deogarh).

2. Managing Director,

Odisha State Co-operative

Agriculture Rural Development Bank Ltd.,

A/34, Unit-3, Jawaharlal Neheru Marg,

Bhubaneswar, Odisha.                                                                                               …..O.Ps

              

               Counsels -

               For the Complainant :                                      Nemo

               For the Opposite Party No-1 :                         Nemo

                      For the Opposite Party No-2 :                         None

 

                               DATE OF HEARING : 22.04.2021, DATE OF ORDER :29.04.2021

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant was appointed as peons in the establishment of Deogarh co-operative land development bank vide letter no-2798 dtd. 09.03.1976 and promoted to Junior Assistant  and order to remain as in-charge Supervisor  of Barkote Block Part-1 Circle until further order from  30.06.1986 and remained in charge of collection of Bank dues in Deogarh Municipality  and authorised to issue printed cash receipts to loanee entitling there with FTA.  During that period on dtd.05.08.1999, he has mentioned the authorities to sanction and allow him Supervisor Scale of Pay as from dtd. 05.08.1999 he was working as regular Jr. Assistant in Deogarh Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank. As per the Order No- 125 dtd. 25.09.2007  of the Management- in-charge he was a bonafide Field Officer of the Bank and handed over the charge to the  reliever Dileswar Dandsena, the then Secretary. After retirement he has received all the dues except the CPF and he is continuously approaching the O.P-1 who is the acting Managing authority at Deogarh CARD Bank. But the O.P-1 always states that as there is no money he cannot settle the issues now.  The CPF amount was Rs. 1,37,320/- as on dtd.31.03.2010 and at present it will be Rs.2,47,500/- approximately. But the Complainant now came to know from sources that there is enough money at Deogarh CARD Bank as the loanee are paying back their loan and releasing their Khatians. So the Complainant requested the O.P-1 to pay the Contributory Provident Fund(CPF) dues from that amount but no response was made. The Complainant being an employee is a consumer under the C.P act and has the right to redressal against the harassment and deficiency in service caused by the O.Ps.

As per the O.P-1 is the Sub-Asst.  Registrar of Cooperative society, Deogarh Circle working as the In-charge Secretary of CARD Bank, Deogarh since November-2016. As per the Audit Report for the year 2018-19  Sri Mishra is entitled to  get Rs.1,68,219/- only from CARD Bank Deogarh . Due to non-availability of fund   the O.P-1 is not able to pay to the Complainant ,Ex-FO CARD Bank, Deogarh. More ever the Complainant along with other Ex-employees of this Bank has not received their dues from this Bank and the total dues of Ex-employees are around Rs.30,91,792/- including the Complainant. The matter has already been intimated to Managing Director,  OSCARD Bank  but he is silent in this regard. The CARD bank Deogarh is to receive OTS dues of Rs.42,73,729 from OSCARD Bank, Bhubaneswar. The O.P-1 will be able to pay the dues to the Complainant only after he receives the same from the O.P-2. Hence he has not committed any deficiency in service and he shall not be penalized.

The O.P-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 this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P-2 as ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. 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 Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as 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. Spring Meadows 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(42) and the member a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(7) 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 is working under the O.P-2 without obtaining order from the higher authority he cannot disburse the amount of CPF to the Complainant. Again he has reported the matter to the O.P-2 regarding the payment dues to be made to the Complainant but the O.P-2 remained silent and intentionally ignored the Complainant. 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 jointly and severally directed to settle the provident Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) amount and reimburse to the Complainant with 5% interest per annum on this amount from the date of retirement from service i.e., dtd. 30.09.2007 till its realisation." The O.Ps are further jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. 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 29^th day of April-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,

 

            MEMBER.                                                                                          PRESIDENT.

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                             By me.

 

         PRESIDENT.