BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
WEDNESDAY, the 27th day of September, 2017
FIRST APPPEAL No. 11/2017
1. The Branch Manager,
State Express Transport Corporation (T.N.) Limited,
Opp to Swadeshi Mill, Maraimalai Adigal Salai,
Puducherry 605 001.
2. The General Manager (Administration),
State Express Transport Corporation (T.N.) Limited,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
……….. Appellants
Vs.
K.Sellappan, S/o Karuppana Cavundar,
No.26, First Main Road, East Vasal Nagar,
Nainarmandapam, Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry – 4. ………….. Respondent
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C..No.39/2013, dt.29.09.2016 by District Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.39/2013
K.Sellappan, S/o Karuppana Cavundar,
No.26, First Main Road, East Vasal Nagar,
Nainarmandapam, Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry – 4. ………….. Complainant
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager,
State Express Transport Corporation (T.N.) Limited,
Opp to Swadeshi Mill, Maraimalai Adigal Salai,
Puducherry 605 001.
2. The General Manager (Administration),
State Express Transport Corporation (T.N.) Limited,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
……….. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU. S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANTS:
Thiru R.Soupramanien,
Advocate, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Thiru R.Raja Prakash,
Advocate, Puducherry.
O R D E R
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry, dated 29.09.2016 made in C.C.39/2013.
2. The Opposite Parties before the District Forum are the appellants herein and the complainant thereon is the respondent.
3. The parties are referred to in the same position as they have been referred before the District Forum for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that he was working as conductor in the O.Ps Corporation from 21.02.1981 and attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2012 after serving for 31 years 5 months and 10 days. He was a member of Provident Fund under the opposite parties. He submitted an application on 25.05.2011 for non-recoverable loan from his share amount lying in the Provident Fund Account and on 03.08.2012, he submitted another application to the 2nd opposite party for settling the amount due from his provident fund account along with other retirement benefits. Since the amount has not been settled, he had issued a letter dated 25.05.2013 requesting for settlement of dues. However, the dues have not been settled. He, therefore, laid a complaint before the District Forum for payment of Provident Fund due to him, viz. Rs.5,25,000/- being the amount payable to him under P.F. Account along with interest and a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings.
5. Reply version has been filed by O.P.No.2, which was adopted by 1st opposite party.
6. The reply version, in nut shell, is stated hereunder.
For non-payment of Provident Fund amount, he should have approached the Head Office at Chennai and without doing so, straightaway approached the District Forum. He should have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal since the O.P.s Corporation is a Government Undertaking. He is not a consumer under Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act. Thus, the reply version seeks for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. Before the District Forum, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C7 were marked. On behalf of O.P.No.1, one Mr.A.N.Ragulan, Branch Manager was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R3 have been marked.
8. The District Forum framed the following three points for determination:
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the Opposite Parties attributed any deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?
9. The District Forum, after considering various judgments, has found that the complainant is a consumer. In our considered view, the said finding of the District Forum do not require any interference by us. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is a consumer under the Act.
10. Since during the pendency of the case, a sum of Rs. 5,14,058/- was paid to the complainant, no order was passed for payment of Provident Fund dues to the complainant. This position has been accepted by both the counsel. Before the District Forum, a memo has been filed on behalf of the complainant showing that the complainant has received the above amount.
11. In the present appeal, the question that has to be decided is whether the interest awarded by the District Forum, compensation and cost awarded by District Forum has to be set aside?
12. It is an admitted fact that the provident fund dues are to be settled within 30 days from the date of receipt of application. The complainant submitted his application on 03.08.2012. But, the opposite parties settled the dues only on 07.09.2015, i.e. about two years after the complaint is filed. Therefore, the District Forum has rightly awarded interest at 12% p.a. for the delayed payment of Provident Fund to the complainant. In our considered view, the said order is perfectly in order and it requires no modification. Having failed to make the payment in time, undoubtedly, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest. Therefore, this part of the order is to be confirmed.
13. As regards compensation that has been ordered by the District Forum for the loss and sufferings is concerned, in our considered view, even this order does not require any modification. The complainant has been made to run from pillar to post to get back the amount due to him towards Provident Fund. The complainant has been made to file the complaint before the District Forum and as already stated, Provident Fund dues has been paid only during the pendency of proceedings. Therefore, the District Forum has rightly held that the opposite parties have to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation. As regards costs that has been ordered by the District Forum is concerned, the reasons for payment of compensation is equally applicable here also. As stated already, the complainant was made to file the complaint before District Forum and also made to defend. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to costs of Rs.5,000/-. Though we can award cost for filing fictitious appeal before this Commission, we are not awarding any cost. Therefore, the appellant is directed to pay the amounts specified by the District Forum within one month from the date of this Order.
Dated this the 27th day of September, 2017
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
