Haryana

Ambala

CC/432/2022

KULWINDER KAUR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GEEKAY SECURITY SERVICES PVT.LTD - Opp.Party(s)

JASWINDER SINGH

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	432 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	01.12.2022
Date of decision	:	01.06.2023

 

Kulwinder Kaur, widow of Late Sh. Randhir Singh, resident of Village: Ghel Khurd, Post Office: Ghel, Tehsil & District: Ambala.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Geekay Security Services Pvt. Ltd, Door No.G-11, Ground Floor, Tulsiana Chambers, Free Press Journal Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.
2. Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 341, Service Road, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Jasvinder Singh Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   OPs No.1 and 2 already ex parte.      

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) and prayed as under:-  

1. To direct OP No.1 to supply the documents immediately, (if not supplied till date) to the OP No.2.
2. To direct OP No.2 to settle EPF/EDLI/EPS claim of the complainant without delay.
3. To direct the OPs No.1 & 2, to pay, jointly & severally, an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service & adopting unfair trade practices.
4. To pay, jointly and severally, an amount of Rs.25,000/- as damages for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant.
5. To pay Rs. 5000/- as litigation charges.
6. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a widow of Late Sh. Randhir Singh, who met with an accident at Ambala on 13/09/2020 and died while on duty working with OP No.1. He was a registered member of OP No.2 vide UAN no.100810400079. Therefore, the complainant applied for settlement of EPF/EDLI/EPS claim in respect of her late husband Sh. Randhir Singh, with OP No. 2, and supplied all the relevant documents asked/ sought by both the OPs, but her claim was denied for want of supply of documents by OP No.1 to OP No.2 and despite repeated reminders by complainant to OP's, her claim has not been settled till date. In this regard Regional PF Commissioner-II, RO: Bandra of EPFO, Regional Office Mumbai, (OP No.2) vide speed post letter No. MH/BAN/PRO/RETURN/42757/10277/1269 dated 06/12/2021 has returned complainant's claim form for non-supply of following documents by OP No.1:-

a) Death while in Service Certificate from Employer.

b) Form No.5 & 10.

c) Form No.3A-Last 3 years.

d) Copy of Muster Roll, Break Statement from DOJ to DOD.

3.           The complainant on several occasions telephonically approached OP No. 1 to supply above-mentioned documents for speedy settlement of her claim for which concerned official of OP No. 1 assured to do the needful as early as possible however till date the said documents have not been supplied resulting in inordinate delay/ denial in settlement of her claim. When nothing was done by the OPs, left with no alternative, she served legal notice dated 01/02/2022 and 29/03/2022 upon the OPs followed by a reminder but to no avail.  Hence this complaint.
4.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs No.1 and 2, before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.02.2023.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not redressing the grievance of the complainant, who is a widow, by making payment of the dues, for which she is legally entitled to, after death of her husband, the OPs are deficient in providing service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice.
8.           It may be stated here that in order to prove her case, the complainant has placed on record, a copy of the letter No. MH/BAN/PRO/RETURN/42757/10277/1269 dated 06/12/2021, Annexure C-1, having been sent by OP No.2 to OP No.1 (with copy of the complainant) seeking the documents referred to above, yet, there is nothing on record that the said documents were ever supplied by OP No.1 to OP No.2. Since, the deceased husband of the complainant was working with OP No.1 and as such, OP No.1 was under legal obligation to provide all the documents, sought for by OP No.2, for settlement of claim of the complainant. It is the definite case of the complainant that despite making number of request in the matter, OP No.1 failed to supply the said documents to OP No.2 and till date her claim has been left in lurch. It is significant to mention here that, as stated above, notice of this complaint was sent to OPs No.1 and 2 seeking their version, yet, nobody appeared on their behalf, despite service,  as a result whereof, they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 13.02.2023. The non-appearance of OPs No.1 and 2 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant went unrebutted & uncontroverted. However, it can easily be judged from the complaint as well as record thereof, that OP No.1 did not provide the documents, sought for by OP No.2, for settlement of claim of the complainant. Whereas it was the bounded duty of the OP No.1 being employer of the deceased husband of the complainant to provide the documents pertaining to him sought for by the OP No.2, but it did not do so. As such, the OP No.1 is not only liable to provide the said documents to the OP No.2 but is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses. At the same time, we also hold that OP No.2 shall settle the claim of the complainant after receiving the requisite documents from the OP No.1.  
9.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP No.1, to provide necessary documents pertaining to the deceased husband of the complainant to OP No.2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which it shall liable to pay penalty @ Rs.50/- per day for not providing the necessary documents pertaining to the deceased husband of the complainant to the OP No.2 and pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.5,000/-, from the date of default, till realization. The OP No.2 is also directed to settle the claim, of the complainant, within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the requisite documents from the OP No.1, failing which it shall be liable to pay penalty @ Rs.50/- per day, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:- 01.06.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President