Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/275/2022

Surjan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Employees Provident Fund Regional Office - Opp.Party(s)

Hitender Kansal

16 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/275/2022
Date of Institution	:	07/03/2022
Date of Decision	:	16/07/2024

 

Surjan Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh aged about 58 years, Resident of village Lohgarh Phidday. Post Office Laudi Majra, Tehsil and District Ropar Pin Code: 140001.

 

.... Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Employees Provident Fund Regional Office, S.C.O. 4-7, Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017 through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

Opposite Party(s)

 

2. Sant Karam Singh Academy Shampura Roopnagar Punjab 140001, through its authorized signatory.

 

Performa Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Hitender Kansal, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Gaurav Tangri, Advocate for OP No.1.
	:	OP No.2 ex-parte.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant due to his family problem resigned from his Post on 30.11.2014 from the office of the OP No.2. The requisite documents for payment of pensionary benefits i.e., Arrears of Pay Scale, Leave-Encashment and Gratuity were completed and submitted by the complainant to his office. The other documents regarding Provident Fund and monthly pension from EPF were submitted through Complainant's employer OP No.2 to OP No.1, as complainant is entitled for benefit available to him under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and under section 69 and 72 of The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952.  Though the OP No.2 paid the retrial benefit of the complainant timely. But, till October 2021 OP’s miserably failed to pay the benefits of complainant which are required to be made available to him under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952.  The complainant in the month of November 2021 approached office of OP No.1 to know the status of his claim/benefit which supposed to be paid by said opposite party much prior to said date. On enquiry from office, it transpired to complainant that Opposite Party No.1 had lost the documents of complainant which were duly submitted by the Complainant through OP No.2 given at the time of resignation. The audacity of the carelessness of the office of OP No.1 can be judged from this very fact that complainant submitted his claim documents on 30.11.2014 but, till October 2021 opposite party No.1 have not bothered to convey the factum of loss of documents to complainant or his employers. On 13.12.2021 the complainant again approached OP No.1 office and once again submitted his documents but, at that time official of OP No.1 refused to accept the same as they had not reconciled its record. However, despite his best efforts, officials of OP No.1 have not accepted the documents and no action has been taken by them for doing the needful for the reasons best known to them. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the claim of the complainant (Form 19) has been settled for Rs.1,42,508/- on 02.03.2022 with interest till date of provident fund accumulation. However, his provident fund accumulation from 2003 to 2008 will be settled shortly after verification and reconciliation of record which is under process. It is further stated that the Central Board of Trustees being the Corporate Body and the ultimate authority under the provision of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act is the only legal entity which can sue and be sued as per Section 5-C of Act. Since, the Central Board of Trustees being a necessary party has not been impleaded in the present complaint as respondent. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that no relief has been sought by the complainant against answering OP. The dispute is between the complainant and OP No.1. It is further stated that in the month of November 2021 complaint approached Answering OP and apprised that the contribution details of complainant available with OPs pertains to the period of 31.03.2008 to till his resignation and have no details of contribution prior to 31.03.2008. The Answering OP immediately provided the relevant record of its contribution to complainant. Later on, the Answering OP on 17.11.2021 by writing a letter also provided the form 3A and requested the opposite party no.1 to reconcile its record (Annexure R-2/2). On 13.12.2021 the complainant once again approached the answering OP along with fresh form for claiming his PF contribution amount and pension which was duly filed, signed and stamped by the competent authority of Answering OP and provided to complainant on same day (Annexure R-2/3)?
4.     No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     The main grievance of the complainant is that OP No.1 has not paid his arrears of P.F. dues which were deducted by OP No.2 and deposited with OP No.1.
8.     On perusal of the Annexure C-2, which is a letter addressed from OP No.2 to OP No.1, enclosing form 3A for the period 2003-04 to 2007-08 and also enclosing member passbook, claim form 10-D, Pan Card, Aadhar Card & cancelled cheque, wherein OP No.2 requested the OP No.1 to reconcile the records and also to settle the claim as early as possible. 
9.     On perusal of para 12 of reply of OP No.1, it is observed that claim of the complainant has been partially settled for Rs.1,42,508/- on 02.03.2022. However, regarding complainant P.F. accumulations from 2003 to 2008 the OP No.1 has mentioned that these will be settled shortly after verification & reconciliation of records.
10.     The OP No.1 has admitted in para 12 of its reply that they have partially settled the claim for Rs.1,42,508/- on 2.3.2022 and they are yet to settle the balance claim. From the above discussion, the OP No.1 has admitted delay in verification & reconciliation of records, hence, we are of the view that OP No.1 is deficient in providing service due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony & harassment.
11.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP No.1 is directed as under:-

1. Verify & reconcile records and pay the balance amount, if any due to the complainant.
2.  to pay a lumpsum compensation amount of ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.

12.     Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved or alleged against Opposite Party No.2, therefore, the consumer complaint qua it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
13.     This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(i) above.
14.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
16/07/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member