Punjab

StateCommission

A/10/992

Krishan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

FCI Department - Opp.Party(s)

In person

05 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.992 of 2010

 

 

                                                Date of Institution: 02.06.2010

                                                Date of Decision : 05.08.2015

 

Krishan Lal son of Sh. Kulwant Rai, Retd., Employee of FCI Department T.A II One Way Traffic Road, Labi Bus Street, Ward No.6, Mansa.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             …..Appellant/Complainant  

                                      Versus

 

FCI Department through its Executive Director (N) Zonal Office, North, Food Corporation of India FCI Employee's CPF Trust, Khadhya Purna Sadan, A/2A.1/2B, Sector 24, Noida (U.P) 120130.

 

                                                          … Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

First Appeal against order dated 28.04.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Mansa

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                   :         Sh.Ram Parkash, Authorized   Representative

          For the respondent      :                     Sh. N.K.Zakhmi, Advocate

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 28.04.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mansa, accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing the OP to depute some responsible person from its office to get the required  form filled in from complainant and to get complete formalities for the release of CPF dues along with interest, as permissible under the rules within a period of two month from the receipt of copy of this order. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by complainant now appellant.

2.      The complainant Krishan Lal has filed  the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that  he was employee of FCI Department at Mansa. He retired from service on 31.08.2009 under the supervision of Area Manager FCI Bathinda. He has contended in the complaint that OP was trustee member of Employee Provident Fund Scheme 1952. OP collected CPF funds from FCI employees  and maintained account of FCI employees CPF Trust under Rule No.5(1)(ii) of FCI, E CPF Rules.  The complainant remained a member of the said scheme, vide Member No.6526 of FCI ECPF Trust under Rule No.2 of the FCI employees CPF Rules. OP has not paid any amount to the complainant out of his payable dues of gratuity and leave encashment and OP withheld the same on account of some pending enquiry against complainant. It was further alleged that complainant suffered from paralysis and was without any source of income for his livelihood. Vide letter dated 10.09.2009, the OP was requested to make the payment of his CPF dues to complainant, besides supplying the CPF statement to complainant, it was obligatory on the part of OP to do so. OP failed to supply demanded CPF statement to complainant and had not paid CPF dues to complainant, vide letter dated 08.06.2009. The complainant requested FCI Department Chandigarh through Area Manager FCI Bathinda for the disbursement of the payment of his retrial benefits along with basic and admissible payment. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint against OP for direction to pay Rs.7,36,500/-, as per detail in para no.13 of the complaint, which includes Rs.5,38,956/- as CPF dues, CPF deduction Rs.37110/- , besides Rs.1,60,434/- and further interests, besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

3.      Upon notice, OP filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was contended by OP in written reply that complaint merits dismissal for non-impleading of the necessary parties like Area Manager FCI, District Officer Bathinda, the District Administrative Office and Manager FCI, FSD Mansa along with Provident Fund Commissioner New Delhi. It was further averred in the written reply that complainant was relieved from service instead of retiring him, as four vigilance cases were pending against him, vide order no.A/1(3306)/EI/71/28507 dated 31.08.2009 , when he was posted as Area Manager in the FCI District Office Sangrur. The complainant remained on long leave and was transferred to District Office Bathinda, when he was on long leave. The complainant was relieved from the service of FCI and he is entitled to CPF only. It was further stressed in the written reply that complainant was asked to submit the requisite forms with requisite formalities but he has not made compliance thereof despite issuance of letter dated 14.12.2009 to him. The payment will be released to him for CPF dues only on receipt of sanction of his payment along with interest as permissible. The complaint was also resisted even on merits by contending that payments of gratuity and leave encashment are beyond the domain in the Consumer Forum's jurisdiction. OP further pleaded that complainant was asked to submit the requisite forms with requisite formalities, but complainant had not made any compliance thereof despite letter dated 08.06.2009. OP further stressed that four vigilance enquiries were pending against complainant and he was relieved from service instead of retiring therefrom gracefully. OP prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, the affidavits of complainant Krishan Lal Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7.  As against it, OP tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Mansa, accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OP to depute some responsible person from the office to get the required form filled in and get complete formalities for the release of CPF dues along with interest as permissible under the rules within a period of two month from the receipt of copy of this order. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Mansa dated 28.04.2010, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      Originally complaint was dismissed in default of the complainant by this Commission, vide order dated 23.12.2011. The order was set aside by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1052 of 2012 dated 22.05.2013 and appeal was ordered to be restored on the original number and was done accordingly.

6.      We have heard the authorized representative of the appellant and counsel for the respondent and have also examined the record of the case. Notice was given to Sh. S.C Jindal Advocate counsel for appellant, but he did not put in appearance and Sh. Ram Parkash representative of the appellant appeared in person and argued the appeal. Counsel for the respondent Sh. N.K. Zakhmi has also been heard at considerable length by us. The first point argued before us is whether complainant would be a 'consumer' in this case or not? The matter is not res integra. The Apex Court has settled this controversy in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner versus  Shiv Kumar Joshi reported in 2000(1) SCC Page 98 , wherein it has been held that any employee/member of the Provident Fund Scheme is a 'consumer' and Provident Fund Commissioner renders 'service' under the Scheme for consideration. User of the such services is  a 'consumer'. The law laid down by the Apex Court has binding effect throughout the country, over all the Judicial Authorities and Tribunals. We are strictly bound by law laid down by Apex Court on this point and hold that the complainant is a 'consumer' of the OP accordingly.

7.      The District Forum confined its finding to the point that complainant has not submitted the documents and on that account, CPF dues could not be released to him. District Forum accordingly directed the OP to depute some responsible person to get compliance thereof and thereafter to release the amount of CPF disbursement along with permissible interest thereupon. We have gone through the pleadings of both the parties on the record as well as the findings contained in the order of District Forum. We are of this view that the CPF account deposited is trust money with the OP. The OP is justified in withholding the leave encashment amount and gratuity amount on account of vigilance enquiries pending against the complainant. OP is not justified in denying the benefits of own money of the complainant deposited with the OP in the shape of CPF accounts. The OP is merely trustee of this money on behalf of the complainant. The OP relied upon letter dated 08.06.2009 to the effect that they directed the complainant to submit the requisite documents. The submission of the complainant is that this letter was not received by him. Whatever the case may be,  we are of this opinion that it is not justified on the part of OP to withhold the trust money deposited with OP by the complainant in the shape of CPF account and District Forum directed the OP to depute some responsible person from the office to get the required  form filled in and get complete formalities for the release of CPF dues along with interest as permissible under the rules. We find that when the matter is already delayed, no useful purpose would be served by giving that type of direction, as it would be futile only. It was argued before us that the CPF amount has been released to the complainant by OP during the pendency of the case and complainant now confined his argument regarding payment of the interest on the delayed payment of CPF amount, as pleaded in the grounds of appeal by the complainant now respondent. The amount of Rs.6,30,004/- has been encahsed by the complainant on 02.03.2010 in his saving bank account of State Bank of Patiala Mansa. This fact is pleaded in para no.4 of the grounds of appeal by the appellant. The complainant sought recovery of the interest part on delayed payment thereof, which complainant alleged to have accumulated to the extent of Rs.96,070/-. Whatever the case may be, we are of this view that OP is duty bound to pay the interest on the delayed payment of the CPF account to the complainant. The OP is directed to pay the interest @ 8% per annum for the delayed payment for the period for which CPF amount was delayed by OP to the complainant.

8.      As a result of our above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellant and direct the OP to pay the interest @ 8% per annum on the delayed payment of the CPF amount to the complainant.  In addition to that, OP shall pay the composite amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and costs of litigation to complainant.

9.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 27.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

10.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                 (JASBIR SINGH GILL)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

August 5, 2015.                                                         

(ravi)