SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> Sri. B. Narayana Panicker has filed the complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The contentions of the complainant is that he was the member of the Kerala Motor Workers Welfare Board from 1993 to 2004 and regularly paid the welfare fund without delay. After retirement in the year 2004 he has not obtained the benefit of welfare fund and gratuity from the said board so far. On representation before the authorities, it was learnt that the delay for getting the benefit was the delay on the part of the concerned Employer to remit their subscription amount for the said scheme. Since there was no positive steps to get the benefit from the opposite parties, the complainant filed the complaint seeking relief.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed version. In the version the 3rd opposite party has stated that they have collected the details of the employment of the complainant and ascertained the benefits under section 8 (1) of the said Act and stated that the complainant has retired on 20.3.04. After considering the request of the complainant, they have released an amount of the benefit in his account vide order No.R1/EA217/93 WA 1732/07 for a sum of Rs.26,714/-. It is further stated that they have taken steps to collect the assessed amounts from the concerned employer, through RR proceedings which is now pending. The same will be released after the clearance of the appeal petition.<br /> 3. Considering the contentions of the opposite parties this Forum has raised the issues:-<br /> (1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? (2) Relief. <br /> <br /> 4. Issue Nos. (1) & (2):- On a perusal of the complaint and other documents it can be seen that the contentions of the complainant is that he has not obtained the benefits of the Motor Workers Welfare Fund in spite of his repeated requests. The opposite parties have stated that the steps to collect the fund from the employees are pending; and it will be released to the complainant as, and when it recovered from the employer. Taking the nature and circumstances of this matter into consideration it can be seen that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that the complainant is not a consumer . The issues are found in favour of the opposite parties. <br /> In the result, we are of the view that the complaint is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed. Hence complaint dismissed, no order as to costs.<br /> Complaint dismissed.<br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of July, 2008.<br /> Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN:<br /> <br /> Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH:<br /> <br /> Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI: <br /> <br /> APPENDIX:- Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> // True Copy //<br /> By Order<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> To<br /> Complainant/Oppo.parties/S.F.<br /> <br /> Typed by:-pr/-<br /> Compared by:- <br />