COMPLAINT FILED: 27.05.2009 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 23rd SEPTEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1208/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr. Y.L. Narasappa,<br /> S/o Govindappa,<br /> Aged about 59 years,<br /> # 519, 6th B Main,<br /> Maruthi Housing Layout,<br /> Vasanthapura,<br /> B.S.K. 5th Stage,<br /> Subramanyapura Post,<br /> Bangalore - 560 061.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri V.G. Bhanuprakash<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Managing Director,<br /> ING Vysya Bank Ltd.,<br /> ‘ING Vysya House’<br /> No.22, M.G.Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> 2. The Managing Director,<br /> ING Vysya Financial <br /> Services Ltd.,<br /> (Subsidiary of ING Vysya <br /> Bank Ltd)<br /> 22, M.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> 3. ING Vysya Bank Limited Staff <br /> Provident Fund Trust,<br /> Human Resources Department,<br /> 22, M.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> Rep: by its Process Head – <br /> Terminal Benefits.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri M.S. Mariappa.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction to the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to pay interest on the delayed payment of the Provident Fund amount and for damages to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the mental agony and inconvenience on the allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The case of the complainant in brief as stated in the complaint is he was an employee with the OP-1 since 29.08.1990, he was working a company secretary of OP-2. He has retired from service on attaining age of superannuation on 30.06.2008. OP-1 had not issued any notice of retirement before the date of retirement and settled the Provident Fund amount of the complainant in the month of September – 2008 vide their letter dated 11.07.2008 received by the complainant only after 06.09.2008. The said letter has been antedated as the cover in which it was sent has been dated 02.09.2008 by the bank franking and date of the post office receiving the same is on 06.09.2009. The said letter does not indicate as to up to which date the Provident Fund amount was settled. On enquiry it was that Provident Fund account was calculated up to 30.06.2008 and was assured that details of calculations will be provided and OP had agreed to pay interest for the delayed payment since the bank had paid the PF amount with delay on instructions from Head Chief of Staff. The OP -1 inspite of several requests had not paid the interest for the delayed payment. On 08.09.2008 the complainant wrote letter to the OP-3 seeking with details of the PF account as well as interest to be calculated and paid on the delayed payment. OP-3 after receipt of the said letter while acknowledging the fact that the payment of Provident Fund was delayed, the said delay was on instruction from chief of staff and even accepts that they have to pay interest for the delayed payment. OPs will fully delay the payment of Provident Fund and caused unwanted delay and harassment at a time when the complainant had undergone major spinal surgery. The Provident Fund amount was paid after 61 days of his retirement and the OPs are due in payment of interest on the Provident Fund amount. <br /> <br /> 3. OP-3 filed version and produced three documents as document No.1 to 3, OP-1 and 2 adopted the same. The version of the OPs is the complainant retired from the service on 30.06.2008 and reliving letter was issued to him on very same day. The complainant gave letter on 30.08.2008 to HR Department stating that he as changed his address and now resides in the address mentioned in the said letter. The complainant ought to have given claim application as per para 72(5)(a) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme 1952 as soon as retired from the service. But till to day he had not given any claim application, inspite of that the OPs have given the complainant the Provident Fund amount. OPs kept the cheque ready on 11.07.2008 itself but the complainant had not come forward to receive the same and without any option OPs were preserving the same without knowing what to do same. On 30.08.2008 the complainant had been to the office of OPs and orally stated that his Provident Fund amount may be credited to his account, accordingly the amount was credited from the next day i.e. on 01.09.2008 itself. The complainant had handed over the charge on 22.09.2008 with on intention to harass the OPs. The letter at Annexure – F is dated 08.09.2008, but the so called endorsement in the said letter alleging to have made on 12.08.2008 by one Ramesh Kumar. The OPs are not liable to pay the interest, the Provident Fund amount was credited to the account of complainant on 01.09.2008 after receiving his oral instruction on 31.08.2008. The complainant has filed the false complaint with malafide intention to extract money illegally. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant produced the documents marked as Annexure A to F with his complaint and filed affidavit evidence to substantiate the complaint allegations. OP-3 filed affidavit evidence to substantiate defence version. <br /> <br /> 5. Arguments heard on both sides, points for consideration are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of<br /> the OPs?<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainant is entitled<br /> for the relief’s claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. Our answers to the above points are: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Negative.<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order. <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. It is not in dispute that the complainant was appointed as an employee in the OP-1 on 29.08.1990. He was working as company secretary of OP-2 on deputation. His date of birth is 01.07.1950. He has retired from service on 30.06.2008 on attaining age of superannuation 58 years. OP-1 is the company registered under the Companies Act, OP-2 is a subsidiary of the main bank and is functioning under the name and style of ING Vysya Financial Services Limited. OP-3 is the trust which holds the accounts of the provident fund of the employees of OP-1 and 2. The complainant claims that OP-3 calculated the provident fund amount up to 30.06.2008. The provident fund amount of Rs.11,83,760/- was deposited in his account on 01.09.2008.<br /> <br /> 8. The complainant claims that there is delay of 61 days in crediting the provident fund amount to his account, OP-1 and 2 are liable to pay interest on the provident fund amount for the period of 61 days, as purposely OPs have withheld the provident fund amount without any justification.<br /> <br /> 9. The defence version of the OPs is on 30.08.2008 the complainant gave a letter to HR Department having changed his address and furnishing the present address. The complainant ought to have given the claim application in respect of his claim towards the provident fund as per para 72(5)(a) of employees provident fund scheme 1952 as soon as he retired from the service. He has not given any claim application, inspite of that the OPs have promptly deposited the amount after the complainant furnished his present address. The cheque was ready on 11.07.2008 itself with regard to provident fund amount; the complainant has not turned up to receive the cheque. On 30.08.2008 when the complainant visited the office of the OPs and orally stated that his provident fund amount is to be credited to his account, accordingly on 01.09.2008 itself the amount was credited to his account. <br /> <br /> 10. It may be noted that as per para 72(5)(a) of employees provident fund scheme 1952 when a member of the fund leaves the service the employer has to get claim application for the payment of provident fund duly filled and forward the same within five days to the commissioner or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf. The prescribed application is in Form-19 which provides the details regarding name, address, account No. mode of remittance by postal money order to the address furnished or by account payee cheque to be credited to SB account with an intimation to the claimant; the details of the bank in which the account is opened and its full address. Admittedly the complainant after retiring from service has not filed the claim application by providing the required information. In view of the same OPs could not credit the provident fund amount to the account of the complainant. The complainant has instructed the OPs to credit the provident fund amount to his account on 30.08.2008; accordingly on 01.09.2008 that amount has been credited to his account. OPs cannot be blamed for the delay of 61 days in depositing the provident fund amount. The lapse is on the part of complainant in not filing claim application with particulars for settling the claim in a prescribed Form-19. The very fact that the cheque was kept ready with regard provident fund amount on 11.07.2008 by OPs clearly shows that OPs have not purposely withheld the provident fund amount. Though the complainant has retired on 30.06.2008 but he has handed over the charge on 22.09.2008 as per the document No.3 produced by OPs with their version.<br /> <br /> 11. The complainant mainly relied on the letter marked as Annexure-F produced along with the complaint. That letter is dated 08.09.2008 addressed by the complainant to the OP-3 admitting the provident fund amount being credited to his account on 01.09.2008 and expressing thanks for the same. Further he has sought details regarding the provident fund account and particulars regarding the interest and the period up to which interest was paid. On that letter itself it is stated that one Ramesh Kumar has made an endorsement to the effect that full details are to be provided since they paid the provident fund amount with delay (on instructions from Chief of Staff) they may pay interest for the delayed payment. It is contended that as per this letter OP-3 has agreed to pay interest on the delayed payment of provident fund amount; hence the complainant is entitled for the same. The defence version of OP-1 to 3 is; this letter is concocted one; as the letter is dated 08.09.2008 how such an endorsement could have been made with a date 12.08.2008. It may be noted that the endorsement regarding liability to pay interest on the delayed payment could not have been made on 12.08.2008. The provident fund amount was credited to the account on 01.09.2008; as on 12.08.2008 that amount was not at all credited, as such the endorsement that the provident fund amount is paid with delay is not correct. Thus there is some force in the contention of the OPs that this endorsement is created subsequently to suit the case of the complainant. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OP-1 to 3. The complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed. The complaint is devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 23rd day of September 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm:<br /> <br /> <br />