STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Ramesh Chandra Bhatia, H.No.2026, Sector 69, Mohali (Pb.).

                                                                .…Appellant

                                Vs.

1.     General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Punjab Bay NO.34-38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh.

2.     Executive Director (North), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (North), A-2A, A-2B, Sector 24, Noida (U.P.)

                                                                …. Respondents

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,    MEMBER

Present:   Sh.Ramesh Chander Bhatia, Appellant in person.

                Sh.N.K.Zakhmi, Advocate for the respondents.

                                ---

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.        This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 02.05.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 514 of 2010 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.      The facts, in brief are that, the complainant retired as AGI (M) on 31.3.2008 from the Food Corporation of India.  After retirement in the month of June he received an amount of Rs.2,89,425/- as final payment of CPF vide sanction dated 30.5.2008.  On scrutiny, it was found that detail of total CPF subscription against his CPF account upto 31.3.2008 alongwith interest was not shown and, therefore, the complainant requested to supply the details vide his representation dated 3.9.2008 which was forwarded to the Z.O (N) vide letter dated 17.9.2008. It was further stated that in response thereto the Z.O vide letter dated 17.10.2008 informed that the slip for 07-08 was under process.   It was further stated that on receipt of CPF slip page No.90 prepared on 28.11.2009 for the financial year 2007-08 in respect of his CPF a/c No.8821 showing credit balance of Rs.4,69,589/-, he made a representation dated 7.1.2010 to OP-2 to release the balance amount of Rs.1,80,164/- but the same was not released despite his repeated requests and reminders.  It was further stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.      In their written reply, the OPs admitted the factual matrix of the case.  However, It was stated that the CPF slip for the year 2007-08 generated on 28.11.2009 wrongly showed the balance of Rs.4,69,589/- by including the credit of Rs.66,994/- (CC) and Rs.70,648/- (CS), which amount actually related to the opening balance of 1995-96 and the same was subsequently rectified/deleted from the complainant’s account by generating slip dated 18.6.2010.  It was further stated that the perusal of record showed that the complainant drew part final withdrawal on 24.4.2001 vide MS No.10 which could not be shown in the CPF slip for the relevant year i.e. 2001-02 but adjusted alongwith interest of Rs.18,050/- for the year 2001-02 while adopting the opening balance of 2002-03.  It was further stated that the complainant’s claim for payment of Rs.1,80,164/- was not justified and he was not entitled to the same. It was denied that the representations by the complainant, were not replied. It was further stated that the complainant was paid 90% of his CPF amount i.e. Rs.4,48,000/- in May, 2007  which was reflected in letter dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure R-I). It was further stated that in the said letter (Annexure R-1) it was mentioned that 90% CPF amount i.e. Rs.4,48,000/- was paid by the OPs vide MD No.160 dated 29.05.07 and the balance full and final payment of Rs.2,89,425/- was paid vide MS No.209 dated 30.05.08 along with up-to-date interest besides supplementary payment of Rs.31,353/- vide MS No.113 dated 05.01.2010 (Annexure R-II).  It was further stated that the alleged supplementary payment of revised interest for the year 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 actually pertained to interest payable for the year 2007-08  with upto date interest upto 2008-09 amounting to Rs.31,353/- which was paid to the complainant.   All other allegations of the complainant were denied.  It was further stated that, the OPs were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.      The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.      After hearing the complainant, in person, the Counsel for the OPs, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.      Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.      We have heard the appellant/complainant, in person and the Counsel for the respondents/OPs, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.      The appellant/complainant submitted that after retirement from FCI in the month of June, he received an amount of Rs.2,89,425/- as final payment of CPF vide sanction dated 30.5.2008.  It was further submitted that after going through sanction letter, it was found that detail of total CPF subscription against his CPF account upto 31.3.2008 alongwith interest was not shown and, therefore, he requested the respondents/OPs to supply the details vide his representation dated 3.9.2008, which was forwarded to the Z.O (N) vide letter dated 17.9.2008. The appellant/complainant further submitted that the respondents/OPs vide letter dated 17.10.2008 informed that the slip for the financial year 2007-08 was under process.   It was further submitted that CPF slip dated 28.11.2009 for the financial year 2007-08 in respect of his CPF a/c No.8821 showed credit balance of Rs.4,69,589/-,  The appellant further submitted that he made a representation dated 7.1.2010 to respondent/OP-2 to release the balance amount of Rs.1,80,164/- but the same was not released despite his repeated requests and reminders. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum being illegal is liable to be set aside.

9.      The Counsel for the respondents/OPs submitted that the CPF slip for the year 2007-08 generated on 28.11.2009 wrongly showed the balance of Rs.4,69,589/- by including the credit of Rs.66,994/- (CC) and Rs.70,648/- (CS), which amount actually related to the opening balance of 1995-96 and the same was subsequently rectified/deleted from the appellant/complainant’s account by generating slip dated 18.6.2010.  It was further submitted that the perusal of record showed that the appellant/complainant withdrew some amount on 24.4.2001 vide MS No.10, which could not be shown in the CPF slip for the relevant year i.e. 2001-02 but adjusted alongwith interest of Rs.18,050/- for the year 2001-02 while adopting the opening balance of 2002-03.  It was further submitted that the appellant/complainant’s claim for payment of Rs.1,80,164/- was not justified and he was not entitled to the same. It was further submitted that the appellant/complainant was paid 90% of his CPF amount i.e. Rs.4,48,000/- in May, 2007  vide letter dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure R-I).  He further submitted that as per Annexure R-1, 90% CPF amount i.e. Rs.4,48,000/- vide MD No.160 dated 29.05.07 and the balance full and final payment of Rs.2,89,425/- vide MS No.209 dated 30.05.08 along with up-to-date interest besides supplementary payment of Rs.31,353/- vide MS No.113 dated 05.01.2010 (Annexure R-II) were made to the appellant/complainant.   It was further submitted that the alleged supplementary payment of revised interest for the year 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 actually pertained to interest payable for the year 2007-08  with up-to-date interest upto the year 2008-09 amounting to Rs.31,353/-, which was paid to the appellant/complainant.   It was further submitted that all due payments of CPF amount were made to the appellant/complainant. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum being legal and valid is liable to be upheld.

10.     The only  grouse of the appellant/complainant, is that the statement for the financial year 2007-08 showed the balance amount against his credit as Rs.4,69,589/- whereas he received Rs.2,89,425/- and the respondents/OPs were liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,80,164/- . On the other hand, the Counsel for respondents/OPs submitted that due to mistake, the amount of CPF slip generated on 28.11.2009 which actually did not relate to the appellant/complainant, had been wrongly credited to his account and, subsequently, the same was rectified/deleted from the appellant/complainant’s account, which was evident from the slip generated on 18.06.2010. Thus, the claim of the appellant/complainant regarding the balance amount of Rs.1,80,164/- was not justified.  This fact has further been clarified from Annexure R-14, which reads as under:-

“90% PFW vide MS No.160 dt. 29.5.07               4,48,000/-

Final payment vide MS No.289 dt. 35.5.08

(Int. upto 31.3.07 have been allowed)                  2,89,425/-

Supplementary payment vide MS No.113

dt. 5.1.10                                                            31,353/-

                                                                        _________

                                                                        7,68,778/-                                                                         _________”

        From the perusal of the documents and the calculation  sheets submitted by the parties, it is clear that the respondents/OPs have made full and final payment of the CPF amount to the appellant/complainant, as per the Rules and the demand of the balance amount raised by the appellant/complainant is not justified. There was no deficiency in service on the part of respondents/OPs. Thus, the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

11.   The order of the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.   For the reasons recorded above, the appeal,  being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

13.   Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                          Sd/-

14^th     December, 2011                         [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

cmg

                                                                                                sd/-                                               [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER