Punjab

Sangrur

CC/680/2015

Chand Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Food Corporartion of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Yogesh Gupta

04 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                    Complaint no. 680

Instituted on:  17.07.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    04.11.2015

 

Chand Singh, Manager, Depot (Retired) FCI Sangrur, R/o H.No.84, Street No.4, Mubarak Mehal Colony, Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

 

1.     Food Corporation of India through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Punjab Region, Sector 24, Chandigarh.

2.     Area Manager, FCI, Club Road, Sangrur.

3.     Zonal Manager (N), FCI A-2A, A-2 B, Sector 24, Zonal Office (North) Noida (UP).

4.     Employees Provident Fund Organization, FCI, Zonal Office, North, CPF Trust FBT, A-2A, A-2 B, Sector 24, Noida 201 301 OPC.

5.     Executive Director (CPF), Food Corporation of India, HQ CPF Division, Bara Khamba Lane, New Delhi.

6.     General Manager (CPF), Food Corporation of India, Z.O. (N) CPF Division, Khadya Purna Sadan, Sector 24, Noida (UP).

7.     Assistant General Manager (CPF), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (N), CPF Division, Khadya Purna Sadan, Sector 24, Noida (UP).

 

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri Yogesh Gupta, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES           :     Shri Ajay Kumar Bansal, Advocate                    

 

 

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                  

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   K.C.Sharma, Member

                   Sarita Garg, Member.

           

ORDER BY:     

 

K.C.Sharma, Member.

 

1.             Shri Chand Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a retired employee of the Ops and is residing at Sangrur and having CPF account number 21459 (Old) (new 7039) and FPS number 1006t.  The grievance of the complainant is that he requested the Ops vide letters dated 8.10.2008, 30.4.2009 and 18.10.2010 to supply CPF slips w.e.f. 1972 to 2008-09, but the Ops did not supply the slips for the year 1976-77, 1997-98, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2008-09. It is further stated that the amount deducted against the family pension scheme has not been mentioned in the slips for the years 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1980 and the slips after the year 1980 are not clarifying the total amount and interest etc.  It is stated further in the complaint that the complainant remained posted at Faridkot w.e.f. 1992 to 22.8.1993 and at Ludhiana w.e.f. 19.7.2002 to 20.1.2014. It is stated further that the record of PF and EPF of the Ops is not correct as such, the complainant approached the Ops for supply the correct record, but nothing happened.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to produce the correct provident statement of the complainant w.e.f. 1972 2008-2009 and thereafter to pay the balance amount along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.   

 

2.             In reply filed by the Ops, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the provident fund scheme cannot be held to be a service within the meaning of section 2(1)(o) and that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complaint is false, fabricated and vexatious to the own knowledge of the complainant. It is further stated that the complaint is barred by limitation.  On merits, it is stated that the CPF claim relating to the complainant for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 has also been released for Rs.11,778/- vide MS number 1068 dated 4/2012/2014 to District Office Sangrur for making the payment to the complainant.  Contribution for the period w.e.f. 19.7.2002 to 21.1.2004 had already been credited in his CPF account number 7039 while releasing CPF final payment. It is stated that the slips for the every year have been provided to the complainant.  It is further stated that as the complainant demanded his CPF slips for the years 1972 to 2008-09, the slips for the period 1980-81 to 2009-10 have already been provided to the learned counsel for the complainant vide letter dated 4.8.2014.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.  Lastly, it has been stated by the Ops that it is not a consumer dispute and the complaint should be dismissed with special costs.

 

3.             It is worth mentioning here that in the reply the Ops have taken the objection that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, as such on 12.10.2015, the case was fixed for consideration on the point of jurisdiction.  The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on 28.10.2015 on the point of jurisdiction and the case was fixed for orders for today.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops and has further stated that the complaint is very much maintainable before this Forum. To support such a contention, he has cited Regional Provident Fund Commissioner versus Bhavani, Civil Appeal No.6447 of 2001, decided on 22.4.2008. 

 

5.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops and further that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the Ops has cited Food Corporation of India New Delhi versus Kashmir Singh and others, Revision Petition No. 3317 of 2008, decided on 6.4.2015 by the Hon’ble National Commission, wherein in para number 7 of the order it has been held that the complainant is not a consumer. It is also worth mentioning here that the judgment Regional Provident Fund Commissioner versus Bhavani (AIR 2008 SC 297) has also been discussed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the order. However, para 7 of the order is reproduced below:-

 

“… An employee of an establishment who is governed by Employees Pension Scheme 1995 framed under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 is not a consumer vis-à-vis his employer in terms of section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act  in a case where the pension scheme is not administered by the employer himself. In other words, such an employee shall not be a consumer vis-à-vis his employer, within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act where the pension scheme is administered by an agent such as a Regional Provident Fund Commissioner/Provident Fund Commissioner…”

 

 

6.             In view of the above legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not a consumer  as he was an employee of the OPs and was subscribing for the subscription of the Provident Fund. As such, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant on this score alone.  However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.      

Pronounced.                                      

 

                November 4, 2015.

 

 

                                       

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                              President

       

 

 

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

       

 

                                                           (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member