Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/163

Rohit Kumar Maingi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Sneh Prabha - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Chawla

14 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                                   C.C. No. :               163 of 2019

Date of Institution:    02.07.2019

Date of Decision :     14.01.2020

 

Rohit Kumar Maingi son of Tirath Ram Maingi, resident of Old Factory Road, Surgapuri, Near Ganju Karyana Store, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Dr Sneh Prabha wife of Dr Som Nath Singla Proprietor of M/s Singla Nursing and Eye Hospital, Fauji Road, Kotkapura, Teshil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
2. Rajiv Mittal, EPF Inspector, then at Kotkapura sitting at Bathinda and now posted at Sri Muktsar Sahib and sitting at EPFO Officer, Near T V Tower, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda.
3. EPF Commissioner, EPFO Office, Near T V Tower, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

                                            ....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:        Sh Sunil Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                    Sh Ravinder Kumar Singla, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                    Sh Deepak Singh Kamboj, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and OP-3,

cc no. 163 of 2019

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                   Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to them to pay EPF on the basis of amount deducted and contributed by OP-1 from the salary of complainant and for further directing them to pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for harassment  suffered besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                            Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant was employed in the hospital of OP-1 at salary of Rs.15,000/-. He joined his job in the hospital of OP-1 on 6.04.2015 and as per rules OP-1 was required to open EPF account of complainant and to contribute the EPF as per rules. It is submitted that complainant worked with OP-1 with full dedication and sincerity, but on 5.01.2019, OP-1 asked him that his services are not required and disallowed him to attend his job. OP-1 removed him from service without any complaint of complainant and without giving any prior notice to him. it is alleged that in July, 2017 Inspector of OP-2 and OP-3 visited the hospital of OP-1 and he instructed the hospital authorities regarding opening the EPF account of complainant but despite oral instructions from OP-2 and OP-3 and several requests by complainant, OP-1 neither got opened his E.P.F. account nor paid any contribution in this regard. All this is against the rules and regulations  and even legal notice issued by complainant through his counsel for opening EPF account to OP-1 and E.P.F.

cc no. 163 of 2019

Commissioner, bore no fruit as they did not remove the grievance of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. Despite repeated requests, OPs did not do the needful. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 9.07.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                        Ld Counsel for OP-2 and OP-3 filed reply wherein took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and OPs have been unnecessarily dragged in present litigation. Complainant is not their consumer and no cause of action arises against them. however, on merits, OP-2 and OP-3 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that on receipt of complaint from complainant, matter in dispute was inquired by Enforcement Officer Rajdeep Singh Brar, who gave oppertunity to both complainant and OP-1 to produce their record and after inspection of report furnished by both the

cc no. 163 of 2019

parties, said officer submitted his report to Op-3 alongwith  assessment report of non remittance dues of EPF by OP-1 and on receiving the report OP-3 issued notice dated 6.09.2019 to OP-1 for violation of provision of EPFO Act 1952 directing the same to deposit Rs.1,69,849/- for the period of April 2015 to December 2018 as allied dues. It is reiterated that no cause of action arises against them and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Prayer for dismissal of complaint against them is made.

5                                OP-1 did not file reply, rather it filed an application before this Forum for dismissal of complaint on the ground that parallel proceedings are being in progress with OP-3. Vide this application, OP-1 submitted before the Forum that as per provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Act 1952, complainant is not their consumer and moreover proceedings in this regard have also been initiated by OP-1 with OP-3 and they have taken steps to comply with the orders of OP-3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint against them. Reply to this application was filed by complainant counsel in which he has denied all the allegations of OP-1 being wrong and incorrect and asserted that before filing the present complaint, complainant issued to notice to OP-1 and sent copy of same to OP-3 in response to which, OP-3 Regional Office of EPF sent letter dated 6.09.2019 to OP-1 wherein instructed the OP-1 to deposit Rs.1,69,849/- for the period from April, 2015 to December, 2018 as EPF of complainant. He has prayed for dismissal of application. Meanwhile, during the proceedings of the present complaint, counsel for

cc no. 163 of 2019

complainant suffered statement before the Forum that after recovering the amount from OP-1, OP-3 has deposited the same into the account of  complainant and prayed for compensation and cost from OP-1. Statement got recorded.

6                                       In view of statement given by complainant, it is observed that grievance of complainant has been redressed and demand sought by him has been fulfilled by OPs. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being infructuous. Since, grievance of complainant is redressed during the pendency of complainant also, there is no doubt that complainant has to undergo huge mental agony in procuring justice and he has suffered a lot of harassment in the hands of OP-1. Therefore, OP-1 is burdened with costs and is hereby directed to pay Rs.4,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him including litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forums

Dated: 14.01.2020

(Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)  

          Member                               President