Haryana

Karnal

CC/75/2022

Kanwaljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Employees Provident Fund - Opp.Party(s)

Swaran Singh

24 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 75 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.10.02.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:24.06.2024

 

Kanwaljeet Singh son of Shri Surinder Singh, resident of house no.112/63, Ram Nagar, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Employees’ Provident Fund, Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Sector-12, Urban Estate Karnal, through its Commissioner.

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Swaran Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri K.D. Goyal, counsel for the OP.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that Surinder Singh son of Shri Nanak Singh is the father of complainant. Surinder Singh was the employee of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (A Government of Haryana Undertaking), Karnal and having PF account bearing code no.HR/824/1531-reg. with the OP. He retired from regular service on 31.08.1998 but OP did not provide benefit of provident fund under employee’s provident fund managed by State Government. The father of complainant had approached the OP several times to provide EPF. The said Surinder Singh died on 18.05.2017. Lateron, the complainant has approached the OP several times, on the request of complainant OP issued a letter on 04.06.2021 in which OP has directed the complainant to submit the following documents:- claim form, death certificate of employee (Surinder Singh), aadhar card, PAN Card, Bank account of all the legal heirs of deceased Surinder Singh. As per direction of OP, complainant submitted the claim form alongwith all the necessary documents to the OP like as:-

1. Application for release the EPF amount.
2. Letter dated 04.06.2021 issued by EPF Department.
3. Death certificate and Aadhar card of deceased Surinder Singh.
4. Death Certificate, aadhar card of Jaswinder Kaur wife of Surinder Singh.
5. Legal heir’s verification report alongwith with affidavit.
6. Aadhar card and Bank passbook of complainant.
7. Affidavit and Aadhar card of Sarabjit Kaur.
8. Affidavit and Aadhar card of Paramjit Kaur
9. Death Certificate of Inderjit Singh
10. Farm no.5A, Form no.20 and death claim form etc.

 

Thereafter, OP has issued a letter on 16.11.2021 and return the Death Claim Form-20 with direction to contact the employer and provide the ownership return in Form 5A alongwith copy of aadhar card, copy of pan card of authorized person. After receiving the letter dated 16.11.2021 complainant moved an application to the XEN Sub Urban Division no.1 UHBVN Karnal. Lateron 28.12.2021 XEN Sub Urban Division no.1 UHBVN Karnal has sent the required documents form 5A and Form 20, Death Claim Documents, copy of aadhar card and pan card to the OPs to release the EPF amount in favour of legal heir’s of Surinder Singh. In view of the above averments, it is clear that complainant is entitled to get release the amount of his share as well as the share of his sisters namely Paramjit Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur. Because Paramjit Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur have already given consent through their affidavit attested by Executive Magistrate Jallandhar regarding their share to be released in favour of complainant but OP postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. On 06.01.2022, OP issued a letter to complainant to furnish a legally entitled certificate from the court of law for release of the EPF accumulations to the entitled person only to harass the complainant. The complainant has submitted the verification report of legal heir’s of deceased Surinder Singh duly counter signed by Tehsildar Karnal and affidavit regarding the legal heir’s duly attested by Executive Magistrate Karnal. The complainant several times approached the OP and requested to release the EPF amount with interest but OP refused to pay the same. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to release the share of complainant alongwith share of his sisters Paramjit Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur because they have already given their consent and no objection if their share will be released in favour of complainant. The share of deceased Inderjit Singh son of Surinder Singh will be released in favour of his legal heir’s i.e. Mandeep Kaur wife of Inderjit Singh, Manpreet Singh and Simarpreet Singh sons of Shri Inderjit Singh resident of Amritsar (Punjab) from the abovesaid EPF account of deceased Surinder Singh alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of its deposit till its realization, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.30,000/- as cost of litigation

2.           On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is pleaded that as per the provision of Section 5-C of the Act, every Board of Trustees constituted under section 5-A or Section 5-B is a Body Corporate under the name specified having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by the said name sue and be sued. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner is appointed by the Central Government who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Central Board and is subject to the general control and superintendence of the Board. The Central Board of the Trustees being the corporate body and the ultimate authority under the provision of the Act is the only legal entity which can sue and be sued. Accordingly, the present complaint against Account Office, EPF, Regional Office, Karnal is not maintainable. Since, the Central Board of Trustees has not been impleaded as a party the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further pleaded that complainant to approached the Hon’ble Civil Court for issuance of necessary succession/legally entitled certificate. The benefits of the deceased will be disbursed by the OP to the family member/nominee/legal heir in equitable share as per the statutory provisions of employees’ Provident Fund Scheme 1952 and Employee’s Pension Scheme 1995 or Entitlement/Succession Certificate issued by the Hon’ble Civil Court and on the requisite forms no.20 completed in all respects alongwith supporting documents as per provisions of the Act. It is further pleaded that the claim form received in the office on 12.10.2021 and returned to member Shri Kanwal Jeet Singh on 16.11.2021 with the objection that ownership return/specimen signature card of the authorized person of M/s Executive Engineer, HSEB, Kanral is not available in office records and same may be provided. It is further pleaded that Surinder Singh having PF account no.HR/824/1531 has already died on 18.05.2017. So the son of Surinder Singh submitted the form-20 (Death Claim) for release of PF amount to them but as per family detail of Surinder Singh, it found that wife of Surinder Singh has already died and the following four family members are left behind of late Shri Surinder Singh, i.e.

Sr. no.	Name (Shri/Smt.)	Relationship	Age
1.	Kanwal Jeet Singh	Son	48
2.	Paramjeet Kaur	Daughter	57
3.	Sarabjit Kaur	Daughter	51
4.	Lt. Inderjeet Singh	Son	45

 

And as per provision of EPF and MT Act, 1952 under para 70 which are reproduced as under:-

70  Accumulation of a deceased member to whom payable: On the death of a member before the amount standing to his credit has become payable or where the amount has become payable before payment has been made”:

1. If a nomination made by the members in accordance with paragraph 61 subsists, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or that part thereof to which the nomination relates, shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in accordance with such nomination: or
2. If no nomination subsists or if the nomination relates only to a part of the amount standing to  his credit in the Fund, the whole amount or the part thereof to which the nomination does not relate, as the case may be, shall become payable to the members of his family in equal shares:

Provided that no Share shall be payable to:

1. Sons who have attained maturity;
2. Sons of a deceased son who have attained maturity;
3. Married daughters whose husbands are alive;
4. Married daughters of a deceased son whose husband are alive.

If there is any member of the family other than those specified in clause (a), (b), (c ) and (d);

        Provided further that the widow or widows, and the child or children of a deceased son shall receive between them in equal parts only the share which that son would have received if he had survived the member and had not attained the age of maturity at the time of the member’s death.

3. In any case to which the provisions of clause (i) and (ii) do not apply the whole amount shall be payable to the person legally entitled to it.

        Thus, it is very much clear in 70(ii) that PF payment not given to son who have attained the maturity in this case both sons have attained maturity. It is further pleaded that in para no.70 (ii) that PF payment not to be given married daughter whose husband are alive, in this case both the daughters are married and husband are alive. So, as per para 70(ii) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952, complainant has been advised vide letter dated 06.01.2022 to furnish legally entitlement/succession certificate from the Hon’ble Court of law for release of EPF accumulation to the entitled person which is essential as per para 70(iii) of EPF and MP Act, 1952. The complainant has not submitted the succession certificate issued by the competent authority. So, it very much clear that the complainant has not submitted the required documents with the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.            Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of application dated 12.10.2021 Ex.C1, copy of letter dated 04.06.2021 Ex.C2, copy of death certificate of Surinder Singh Ex.C3, copy of aadhar card of Surinder Singh Ex.C4, copy of death certificate of Surinder Singh Ex.C5, copy of voter card of Jaswinder Kaur Ex.C6, copy of legal heir report Ex.C7, affidavit of legal heir Ex.C8, copy of aadhar card of complainant Ex.C9, copy of bank passbook of complainant Ex.C10, affidavit of Sarabjeet Kaur regarding no objection Ex.C11, copy of aadhar card of Sarabjeet Kaur Ex.C12, copy of affidavit of Paramjeet Kaur regarding no objection Ex.C13, copy of aadhar card of Paramjeet Kaur Ex.C14, copy of death certificate of Inderjeet Singh Ex.C15, copy of letter dated 16.11.2021 Ex.C16, copy of application dated 17.1.2021 Ex.C17, copy of form no.5-A Ex.C18, copy of ID of XEN Ex.C19, copy of letter dated 28.12.2021 Ex.C20, copy of form no.20 Ex.C21, copy of letter delivery dispatch no.2253 Ex.C22, copy of letter dated 06.01.2022 Ex.C23 and closed the evidence on 11.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.            On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Deepak Narwal, Regional P.F. Commissioner Ex.RW1/A, copy of letter dated 06.01.2022 Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 26.03.2024 by suffering separate statement.

 6.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.            Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that the father of complainant namely Surinder Singh was the employee of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Karnal and having PF account with the OP. Surinder Singh died on 18.05.2017 and after the death of his father, complainant submitted the claim form alongwith all the necessary documents with the OP for releasing the EPF amount but OP did not pay the said amount and refused to pay the same on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the case law titled as Gobind Ballabh Pant Agriculture University Versus Jamuna Prasad Pandey and others in first appeal no.239 of 2006, decided on 13.03.2012; Future Fuels DMA Gail Gas Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar in Revision Petition no.34 of 2016, decided on 16.08.2016; Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs. Daljit Singh in Appeal no.118 of 2007, decided on 05.02.2007 and Employees Provident Fund Organization Versus Sunita and Ors in first appeal no.307 of 2021, date of decision 06.04.2022.

8.            Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant has not submitted the succession certificate issued by the competent authority with the OP, which is a mandatory document to release the EPF amount to the legal heirs of deceased Surinder Singh. He further argued that the present complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant has also not impleaded the other LRs as a party and also has not impleaded Central Board of Trustees as a party and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.            We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Now the question arises for consideration is that whether the present complaint is well within period of limitation or not?

11.           Limitation for filing a complaint has been described under Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is reproduced as under:-

1. The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

12.          As per aforesaid Section of Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing a complaint is of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present complaint, the father of complainant retired from the service on 31.08.1998 and died on 18.05.2017. Complainant alleged that the father of complainant approached the OP several times for releasing of his provident fund but there is nothing on file to prove that the father of complainant has approached the OP for releasing of provident fund from the year 1998 till 2017. There is no correspondence between the year 1998 to 2017. Complainant has alleged that he submitted the claim form with the office of OP in the year 2021 but there is also no correspondence between the year 2017 to 2021.  Moreover, there is no separate application on the file, to condone the delay or has not made any prayer for condonation of delay in the complaint. No sufficient cause has been shown by the complainant for not filing the complaint within limitation period. The cause of action has arisen in the year 2017 when the father of complainant died but the complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2022 i.e. after the gap of approximately five years. Hence, as per the provision of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the present complaint is hopelessly time barred

13.           If for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the complaint is well within time, even then the complainant is not entitled for the claim sought in the complaint, because the complainant has not submitted the Succession Certificate with the OP despite repeated requests, which is a mandatory document to release the PF amount.

14.          Furthermore, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant without impleading the other LRs as a party. It is not the case of complainant that he is only the legal heir of the deceased and there are no other LRs of the deceased. The Central Board of Trustees being a corporate body and ultimate authority under the provision of the Act has also not been impleaded as a party. Thus, the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

16.          The case law cited by the learned counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

17.          Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is barred by limitation and also devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:24.06.2024

                                                                   President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member                               Member