DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 278 of 24.11.2015
Decided on: 29.3.2017
Prem Lata w/o Sh.Jagdish Prashad s/o Hari Singh, R/o # 6/1, V irk Colony, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Federal Mogual Goetz India Limited, Bahadurgarh, Patiala-147001.
2. Employees Provident Fund Organization, S.C.O.4-7, Sector 17-D,
Chandigarh- 160017.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Avinash Kumar, Advocate, counsel
for the complainant.
Smt.Kusum Sood, Advocate, counsel for
Opposite party No.1.
Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate, counsel for
opposite party No.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Smt. Prem Lata has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
2. That Smt.Prem Lata wife of Sh.Jagdish Prashad is the resident of above mentioned address. Her brother-in-low, namely Nand Ram, was working with OP no.1 and was living with them in the said residence. He was bachelor. He was suffering from heart problem and died on 20.5.2015. It is averred that she was shown as nominee in the nomination documents of said Nand Ram. After his death, OP No.1 paid her the amount of gratuity and insurance with regard to said Nand Ram. It is further averred that thereafter, when she applied for the withdrawal of E.P.F.amount of deceased Nand Ram, with OP No.1, it instead of enclosing the papers of her nomination, enclosed the papers, of earlier nominee i.e. her deceased mother-in-law, with the documents of provident funds, and sent the same to OP No.2 for approval/clearance. But the OP no.2 refused to release the amount.Thereafter, she told the OP no.2 that OP no.1 has enclosed the old documents with her case, inadvertently and made a request to release the E.P.F.amount but it did not accede to her request. There is thus, deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. It is therefore, prayed that OP No.2 may be directed to pay Rs.11,82,000/-, the amount of provident fund alongwith interest. She may also be got sanctioned pension of P.F.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written version. In written version filed by OP No.1, it has taken preliminary objection that the complainant does not fall in the definition of a ‘consumer’ under the Act. On merits, it is stated that Nand Ram S/o Hari Singh was its employee and had died on 20.5.2015. It is further submitted that it has made the payment of all the amounts to the complainant, where her name had figured as a nominee. It is alleged that on the documents pertaining to the amount of provident fund, the nomination of the complainant has not been mentioned. However, she was asked to get a succession certificate in her favour , in order to get the payment of provident fund of Nand Ram. It is stated that the deceased employee Nand Lal had submitted an application with it for the change in the name of his nominee, as his mother had expired, but the process of the name change was not completed before his death and the complainant is required to furnish the succession certificate to get the amount which is lying deposited in the E.P.F. account of late Sh.Nand Ram.This OP after denouncing all other averments made in the complaint has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. In the written version, filed by Op No.2, it has taken preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of legal heirs of Nand Ram, who are necessary and essential party to adjudicate the case; that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complainant has not submitted any succession certificate duly issued by competent court, in her favour. On merits, it is stated that Nand Ram s/o Hari Singh was member of EPF having E.P.F. A/c No.PN/397/3073. As per office record, the residential address of said Sh.Nand Ram was Bajwa Colony, Badi Nandi, Gali No.1, Patiala. As per detail dated 3.1.1997, Nand Ram made his mother namely Smt.Krishna Devi aged about 60 years as nominee, which was duly countersigned by Op no.1.Thereafter, no modification/amendment, in the nominee has been received either from Nand Ram or from OP no.1.It is further stated that as per Para 61(6) of EPF Scheme, 1952 ‘A nomination or its modification shall take effect to the extent that it is valid on the date on which it is received by the Commissioner’. No modification/amendment as regards nomination for EPF funds was received from Nand Ram during his life time except letters dated 25.6.2015 and 29.7.2015 written by OP no.1 for settlement of death claim case of Nand Ram, wherein he was reported to have died on 20.5.2015. The withdrawal forms received from OP no.1 were returned with the remarks “ that as per office record, form 2 is in favour of his mother and not in favour of his sister-in-law, hence the claim is to be submitted by all members as per succession certificate issued by competent court and there is no eligibility for pension to the complainant. It is stated that Op no.1 is ready to process the death claim of Nand Ram, in respect of the legal heirs, provided the same is submitted by legal heirs alongwith succession certificate through OP no.1. It is further stated that it has taken the action as per rules and regulations and there is no illegality or deficiency of service on its part. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, sworn affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for Op no.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA sworn affidavit of Sh.Amarjit Singh, Sr.Supdt.of OP no.1 and closed evidence and the ld. counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Sh.Tej Partap Singh Yadav, Asstt, P.F.Commissioner alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant & the ld. counsel of OP No.2, and have also gone through the record of the case,carefully.
7. The ld. counsel for the complainant argued that complainant is the sister- in- law of late Nand Ram, who died as spinster. He was working as technician with OP no.1. He was the member of EPF scheme having EPF a/c No.PN/397/3073.Earlier he nominated his mother as his nominee. After her death, he appointed the complainant as his nominee and had filed an application to this effect with OP No.1.After the death of Sh.Nand Ram, complainant being his nominee, put up her case, with the OP no.1 for forwarding it to OP no.2 for release of the amount of Provident Fund. Due to wrong information provided by OP no.1, the OP No.2 refused to release the amount of E.P.F. to her. She also requested OP no.2 in this regard but it did not pay any heed to her request.
8. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for OP no.1, has argued that complainant is not consumer qua it. However, it is admitted that late Sh.Nand Ram was the employee of OP no.1 and the process of change of name of nominee could not be completed before his death .
9. The ld. counsel for OP no.2 submitted that as per office record, the concerned employee namely Nand Ram, appointed his mother as his nominee. No modification/amendment in the name of nominee has been received during his life time, either from him or from OP no.1. No modification or amendment in the nomination exists in the office record, could be made after the death of the member as para 61(6) of E.P.F.Scheme. In the present case, the request for change of nomination has been received from OP no.1 on 29.6.2015 and 31.7.2015 i.e. after the death of the member late Sh.Nand Ram, who died on 20.5.2015.Therefore, OP No.2 is not liable to release the amount of E.P.F. to the complainant. Since she does not fall in the category of family members , hence, she is not entitled to get family pension.
10. As per death certificate, Ex.C2, Nand Ram died on 21.5.2015.From the perusal of page no.2 of Ex,C4, i.e. Nomination and Declaration form , it is evident that late Sh.Nand Ram, has submitted Part B of (EPS) regarding the appointment of Smt.Prem Lata as his nominee, on 10.8.2013 with OP no.1, which is duly signed by the authorized officer of OP no.1. It may be stated that Sh.Nand Ram, died after one year and nine months, after the date on which he submitted the application form for the change of name of the nominee, with OP no.1. The OP no.1 had ample time to do the necessary correction and forward his case to OP no.2. Therefore, the plea of OP no.1 that the process of change of nominee could not be completed during the life time of late Sh.Nand Ram is not tenable. By not doing the needful, OP no.1 has thus committed a mistake and now it can not wriggle out from its liability, merely by saying that the complainant is not a consumer qua it. It is a settled law that the employee, who is the member of E.P.F. scheme is a consumer as he has paid the consideration amount in the shape of administrating charges and the beneficiary of the employee is also a consumer. It may be stated that on receipt of application for change of name of nomination from late Sh.Nand Ram, OP no.1 was bound to make the necessary corrections in their record and were also bound to send the same to the OP No.2 but by not doing so it committed grave mistake, due to which the complainant being nomine of Late Sh.Nand Ram, ( which has been proved from the record) was deprived of to get the E.P.F.amount. Due to said act of OP No.1, the complainant has suffered mental agony and physical harassment . Therefore, Op No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant on that count and also liable to pay the litigation expenses incurred by the complainant. Once, it is established that late Sh.Nand Ram had appointed the complainant as his nominee during his life time. Then the complainant being the nominee is certainly entitled to get the amount lying deposited in the E.P.F. account of late Sh.Nand Ram. But this fact has been overlooked by the OP No.2 and has wrongly refused to release the amount of E.P.F. in favour of the complainant. The complainant is entitled to the amount lying deposited in the E.P.F. account of late Sh.Nand Ram, alongwith interest. It may be stated that the complainant does not fall within the definition of family member, as such, she is not entitled for family pension.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint partly and direct the O.Ps No.1&2 in the following manner:
- The OP no.2 is directed to release the amount of E.P.F. lying deposited in the account of late Sh.Nand Ram, in favour of the complainant, alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint till realization.
- OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5,000/-as cost of litigation.
The Ops No.1&2 are further directed to comply with the directions referred above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:29.3.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
