DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 72
Instituted on: 18.02.2019
Decided on: 05.04.2021
Tarsem Singh aged about 31 years son of Sh. Amarjit Singh, resident of Jhaneri, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch Sunam, Distt. Sangrur through its Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd. Human Resources Division, HDFC Bank House, 2nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 through its General Manager.
3. HDFC Bank Ltd. Covered Employee Provident Fund Trust, Finance-PAD, Lodha, I think Techno Campus, Building Alpha 8th Floor, Next to Kanjur Marg, Railway Station (E) Mumbai 400042.
….Opposite parties.
For the complainant: : Shri A.S.Dullat, Adv.
For the OP No.1 : Shri S.S.Punia, Adv.
For the OP No.2&3 : Exparte.
Quorum: Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
Shri V.K.Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
FACTS
1. Shri Tarsem Singh, complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as he was working with the OP number 1 since May, 2014 as Sale Officer and the OP number 1 issued code COEX-124720 and resigned from the job of the OP on 10.9.2016 and the OP terminated the complainant vide letter dated 10.1.2017. The complainant received the salary till September, 2016. The OP deducted the EPF amount from the salary of the complainant from the date of joining and the amount is lying with the OP number 3. The complainant requested the OPs so many times to release the amount, but nothing was paid. The complainant filed a consumer complaint on 3.8.2018 before this Commission and the OP admitted the claim of the complainant and as such on the assurance of the OP the complainant withdrew the complaint on 5.12.2018 but the OP did not pay the EPF amount. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to pay the remaining EPF amount and to issue No objection certificate and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
WRITTEN VERSION
2. In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has concealed material facts and that the complainant has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was an employee of the OPs. It is admitted that the OPs deducted the EPF amount from the salary of the complainant and it is denied that the EPF amount is lying with the OP number 3. It is stated that when the complainant applied for release of EPF amount, then the same was released.
3. Record shows that the OPs number 2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.
EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
4. The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as he was working with the OP number 1 since May, 2014 as Sales Officer and the OP number 1 issued code COEX-124720 and resigned from the job of the OPs on 10.9.2016 and the OPs terminated the complainant vide letter dated 10.1.2017. The complainant received the salary till September, 2016. The OPs deducted the EPF amount from the salary of the complainant from the date of joining and the amount is lying with the OP number 3. The complainant requested the OPs so many times to release the amount, but nothing was paid. The complainant filed a consumer complaint on 3.8.2018 before this Commission and the OPs admitted the claim of the complainant and as such on the assurance of the OPs the complainant withdrew the complaint on 5.12.2018 but the OPs did not pay the EPF amount, as such the complainant has prayed that the complaint be accepted.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has argued that the complainant is not a consumer as such the complaint should be dismissed and the complainant has also not come to the Commission with clean hands. Further the learned counsel has argued that the OPs deducted the EPF amount from the salary of the complainant and it is stated that the full amount of the EPF has already been paid to the complainant.
7. To prove his case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 suspension letter, Ex.C-2 termination letter, Ex.C-3 affidavit of the complainant. On the other hand, the OP number 1 has produced affidavit of Sevinder Singh, Ex.OP/1 wherein he has clearly stated that the EPF amount of the complainant has already been released and nothing is due against the OPs.
8. The complainant has not mentioned in the complaint that how much dues are pending towards the EPF against the OPs. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant in the earlier complaint number 147 filed before this Commission on 23.3.2018 made a statement on 5.12.2018 that “I withdraw the present complaint being compromised” and in this complaint the relief was to pay the EPF amount, so it is clear that the complainant has already received the EPF amount from the Ops and the version of the OPs is also that there is no dues of EPF against the OPs from the complainant. So, it is clear that previously everything was paid to the complainant and the complaint was dismissed. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has unnecessarily filed this complaint without supporting any document to show that any amount is due against the OPs towards EPF.
9. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
April 5, 2021.
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Member President
