BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 647 of 2015
Date of Institution: 2.11.2015
Date of Decision: 11.7.2016
Dhurup Singh @ Dharoop Singh son of Sh.Muneshwar Singh R/o VPO Bagha Chour, District Khushi Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) at present Preet Nagar, Opp.Taj Palace, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Employee Provident Fund Organization, Branch Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 9, Basant Avenue, Amritsar through its Regional Commissioner/APFC
- Employee Provident Fund Organization, Head Office Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 through its Authorized Signatory/Manager/Principal Officer
- Punjab National Bank, Branch Seorahi (Code No. 1878), Seorahi, District Khushinagar-274 406 (Uttar Pradesh) through its Branch Manager/Manager/Authorized Signatory
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11/12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Amit Monga, Advocate
For Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 : Sh.Sanjay Aggarwa,,Adv.
For opposite party No.3 : Ex-parte
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Dhurup Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11/ 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant is permanent resident of VPO Bagha Chour, District Khushi Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) at present Preet Nagar, Opp.Taj Palace, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar and was working in the establishment M/s. Bawa Shoes Limited, Sri Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran. During his employment, the employer of the complainant used to deduct mandatory deduction of EPF @ 12% on the basic pay.. The said amount with the equal share of contribution by the employer in the family pension scheme and provident fund, used to be deposited in the PF account No. PN/15106/2156 with the opposite parties under the EPF & M.P. Act, 1952. As such complainant falls under the definition of consumer under Consumer Protection Act as amended upto date . Opposite party No.1 is the branch office of opposite party No.2. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and demanded his provident fund dues and opposite party No.1 had settled the dues of the complainant amounting to Rs. 30,103/- . In the month of November 2009, opposite party No.1 assured that complainant will get the payment through account payee cheque very soon. But, however, after the passage of one month complainant did not receive any payment from the opposite party and after making enquiry from opposite party No.1, it was informed that cheque bearing No. 266971 dated 6.11.2009 amounting to Rs. 30,103/- has been issued by opposite party No.1 and cheque will directly be sent to opposite party No.3 in which the complainant was having his bank account No. 1878000101116060. Again after passage of time, complainant did not receive any cheque nor his banker received any payment from the opposite parties. Complainant again approached opposite party No.1 and enquired about the status of the payment . At that time officials of opposite party No.1 told the complainant that payment of the complainant has been debited from the bank account of opposite parties, as such he should enquire the matter from his banker. Accordingly, as per assurance of opposite parties, complainant approached opposite party No.3, his banker Punjab National Bank on numerous occasions and they told the complainant that they have not received the aforesaid payment as yet. In this regard banker of the complainant issued the undertaking/certificate to the complainant. Copy of the undertaking/certificate and account statement are attached. The complainant again visited the office of opposite party No.1 and requested for payment, but the officials of opposite party No.1 told the complainant that opposite parties have already sent the payment to opposite party No.3 in bank account of the complainant. Ultimately, in the month of Feb. 2015, complainant again moved a representation to the Commissioner of opposite party No.1 and requested him to release the hard earned EPF amount but despite that opposite party No.1 did not release the amount to the complainant. The complainant again visited the office of opposite party No.1 in the month of March 2015 but the complainant did not get any satisfactory reply from opposite party No.1 nor received any amount from opposite parties No.1 & 2. It was a day before filing of the complaint, complainant again visited the office of opposite party No.1 and requested them to settle the matter but opposite party No.1 flatly refused the genuine request of the complainant. The aforesaid act on the part of opposite party amounts to negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service due to which complainant had suffered great mental pain, agony, inconvenience and harassment at the hands of opposite parties No.1 & 2. The complainant has sought for following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
(I) Opposite parties be directed to release the provident fund dues of Rs. 30,103/- alongwith upto date interest @ 18% p.a.
(II) Compensation of Rs. 30000/- be also awarded to the complainant .
(III) Costs of the proceedings to the tune of Rs. 11000/- be also awarded.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply. Opposite party No.3, despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the complaint, as such opposite party No.3 was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In their written reply, opposite parties No.1 & 2 took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable qua opposite parties No.1 & 2 as complainant has arrayed opposite parties No.1 & 2 unnecessarily. The amount claimed by the complainant has already been sent to the banker of the complainant vide cheque No. 266971 dated 6.11.2009. Copy of the covering letter is attached. The account of opposite party No.1 has been debited by its banker. The complainant had the grievance only against opposite party No.3 i.e. his banker, which did not credit the amount in his account for the reasons best known to it ; that present complaint is hopelessly time barred as the cause of action arose to the complainant when his banker did not credit the amount in his account in the year 2009 but the complaint has been filed after the gap of more than 5 years and there is no explanation for such a huge delay ; that Districit Forum at Amritsar has no jurisdiction to hear the present complaint as the amount was not credited in the complainant’s bank account maintained at Punjab National Bank, Seorahi at District Khushi Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) and the cause of action arose to the complainant at that place. The complainant should file his complaint there against his bank and the local branch at Amritsar of his bank have no concern with the present transaction in dispute ; that the present complaint is bad in the eyes of law as the complainant filed complaint against opposite parties NO.1 & 2 unnecessarily while he was aware that the payment had been made at the end of the department and now it is for his banker to explain about the fate of the cheque. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. In his bid to prove Sh.Amit Monga,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of letter issued by Provident Fund Officer Ex.C-2, Copy of letter written by Punjab National Bank Ex.C-3, copy of account ledger enquiry Ex.C-4, copy of pass book of Punjab National Bank Ex.C-5, copy of application moved by the complainant Ex/C-6, copy of letter issued by Punjab National Bank Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Sanjay Aggarwal,Adv.counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Jagtar Singh, SSSA Ex.OP1,2/1, copy of letter dated 11.12.2015 Ex.OP1,2/2, copy of account statement Ex.OP1,2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
7. From the appreciation of the evidence on record, it becomes amply clear that opposite parties NO.1 & 2 have already remitted the EPF amount to the tune of Rs. 30,103/- to the banker of the complainant for depositing the same in his account. Copy of the letter issued by opposite parties No.1 & 2 in this regard accounts for Ex.C-2. The banker of the complainant also issued letter to opposite parties No.1 & 2 stating therein to detail the reason on account of which the amount of Rs. 30,103/- has not been credited in the account of the complainant. Copy of the letter accounts for Ex.C-3. But, however, complainant has produced on record account ledger inquiry Ex.C-4 and the perusal whereof shows that the amount of Rs. 30,103/- has not been credited in his account so far . Copy of the pass book issued by Punjab National Bank has also been adduced on record , which is Ex.C-5 and a perusal whereof also shows that amount in dispute has not been credited to the account of the complainant so far. As a matter of fact the amount in dispute has already been remitted by opposite parties No.1 & 2 to opposite party No.3 and the amount has been also debited from their account on 4.5.2010. Copy of the statement of account Ex.OP1,2/3 bears witness to the said fact. Opposite party No.3 has deliberately not cared to appear and contest the present complaint as they were fully aware of the fact that they have been nothing to defend before this Forum and the EPF amount of Rs. 30,103/- has not been credited by them to the account of the complainant despite the fact the banker i.e. opposite party No.3 having received the same as far back as on 4.5.2010. The deficiency in service lies on the part of opposite party No.3. It is a recurring cause of action and the mere fact that complaint has not been filed within two years of the remitting of the amount on 4.5.2010, does not make the instant complaint, time barred . Since opposite party No.3 has chosen to abstain from contesting the present proceedings of the complaint which amounts to implied admission of the genuineness of the case of the complainant.
8. Consequently instant complaint succeeds against opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,103/- i.e. EPF dues of the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from 4.5.2010 until full and final recovery. However, complaint against opposite parties No.1 & 2 fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Cost of litigation are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Opposite party No.3 is directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order ; failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to get the order executed through indulgence of this Forum. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 11.7.2016
/R/
