DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR      

                                                          Complaint No.9                                                                                                  

                                                          Instituted on:  08.01.2019                                                                          

                                                          Decided on:    30.01.2020

Videshi Roy son of Trivani Roy, resident of Purani Bazar Tola Muradpur, District Katihar (Bihar) now residing at Gobind Nagar, Opposite Railway Station, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant  

                                Versus

1.       Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Urban Estate, Doordarshan Tower, Bhatinda through its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

2.       Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, SCO-13, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Inspector.

3.       Malerkotla Steel & Alloys Ltd. through its Managing Director, Near Naudharani Railway Crossing, Barnala Road, Malerkotla.

4.       State Bank of India, through its Chief Branch Manager, College Road, Malerkotla.

                                          ..Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :         Shri  Rohit Jain, Advocate            

FOR OPS 1&2                                 : Shri S.S.Bal, Advocate

FOR OP No.3                                  : Exparte.

FOR OP No.4                                  : Shri Kali Ram Garg, Adv.                       

Quorum:   Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                        Ms.Vandana Sidhu, Member

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member

Order by : Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

1.             Shri Videshi Roy, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that  the complainant was employed with the OP number 3 and the complainant was covered under Provident Fund Scheme and Employees Pension Scheme and his EPF account number was PBBT100136860000000204.  Further case of the complainant is that when he was one year old his father Trivani Roy died and was looked after by his father’s brother namely Gulabi Roy, as such he got mentioned his father name as Gulabi Roy and due to this reason in all of the records his father name was mentioned as Gulabi Roy.  The complainant left the job of OP number 3 and again after some time joined a new job with OP number 3 and new EPF number PBBT100136860000000352 was allotted and mentioned his correct father name as Trivani Roy and the complainant again left the job and got his EPF from the OPs number 1 and 2. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant has a saving account number 31233626771 with the OP number 4. The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs number 1, 2 and 4 are not paying his dues and the account of the complainant has been seized.  Thus, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to de-seize the bank account number 31233626771 of the complainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that new EPF account number PBBT100136860000000352 was allotted and the complainant mentioned his father name as Trivani Roy. It is submitted further that the complainant applied for PF/EPS settlement for his PF account number PB/BTI/13886/204 in January 2013 and mentioned his father name as Gulabi Roy and the account of the complainant was settled accordingly.   Further case of the OPs is that the complainant again joined the service of OP number 3 in July, 2014 and was allotted PF number PBBT100136860000000352 and the complainant again applied for withdrawal of the amount by mentioning his father name as Triveni Roy and he left the establishment in the month of December, 2017.  The complainant submitted a joint request letter along with his claim for change of his father name as Triveni Roy instead of Gulabi Roy. Further case of OPs is that after receiving the claim, the OPs directed the complainant to submit his explanation for the change in his father name and thereafter the Ops received documents such letter issued by the employer, affidavit of the complainant and a clarification wherein the complainant explained the whole facts and after verifying the facts defreeze the bank account of the complainant and a  letter number RO/BTI/Audit/Fradulent Payment/783 dated 24.1.2019 was issued.  As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs 1 and 2 has been denied.  

3.             In reply filed by OP number 4, it is submitted that an email was received from EPF department by OP number 4 to freeze account number 31233626771 of Videshi Roy and accordingly OP number 4 was compelled to freeze the account and mark hold was made on the said account on 3.8.2018 by OP number 4.  However, on 24.1.2019 a mail was received from EPF department by OP number 4 to defreeze the above said saving account and on 25.1.2019 the account in question was defreezed.  As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

4.             Record shows that OP number 3 was proceeded against exparte.

5.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for Ops number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/A to Ex.OP1&2/I copies of documents and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

6.             We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the case file. 

7.             It is worth mentioning here that the Ops number 1 and 2 have clearly mentioned in the written reply that after verifying the facts the account of the complainant was defreezed vide letter number RO/BTI/Audit/Fradulent Payment/783 dated 24.1.2019. Similar is the position of OP number 4 and it has been clearly mentioned in the written reply that after receipt of the mail from the OPs number 1 and 2 on 24.1.2019 the saving account of the complainant was defreezed on 25.1.2019. The fact remains that the saving bank account of the complainant was got freezed by opposite parties number 1 and 2 without assigning any reason and due to this the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment.    

8.             In the sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant Shri Videshi Roy son of Trivani Roy an amount of Rs.10,000/-  as compensation.  This order be complied with within a period of 45 days of its communication.   A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                     

                Pronounced.

                January 30, 2020.

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Vandana Sidhu) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

                 Member                   Member                 President