Kerala

Idukki

CC/189/2019

John Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kerala Motors thozhilali kshemanidhi bord - Opp.Party(s)

11 Nov 2021

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :6.11.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2021

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.189/2019

Between

Complainant : John, S/o. Joseph,

Kunnumpurath House,

Thadiyampadu P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Kerala Motor Thozhilali

Kshemanidhi Board,

Harisree Building, M.W.R.A. -14,

Kochupilamoodu, Mundackal West,

Kollam – 691 001.

Represented by

the Chief Executive Officer.

2. The District Executive Officer,

Kerala Motor Thozhilali

Kshemanidhi Board,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. AMPADY. K.S., MEMBER

 

Allegations of the complainant are as under :

1. The complainant is a driver by profession. He joined in the welfare scheme, introduced as per Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Act and Rules with membership No.KMT/06/HGV/604 in 2008 and membership card was issued on 29.7.2008. He was remitting employee contributions.

2. As per the scheme, the employer and employee has to remit their respective contributions and employer’s contribution was paid through bank, out of which 43 months contribution was paid as a single payment. Employee’s contribution has to be made directly at the 2^nd opposite party’s office. He has paid Rs.6,000/- each for 13 years as his contribution. (cont....2)

- 2 -

3. As per the scheme, if the beneficiary pays for 8 years, the beneficiary on retirement is entitled to get back the amount remitted with interest. Apart from that the beneficiary was also entitled to get pension and also entitled to get Rs.20,000/- for the marriage of the female child, etc.

4. The complainant in the year 2019, had retired from the scheme. As per the scheme, the complainant was entitled for Rs.80,000/- as lump sum payment. However, the complainant got only Rs.56,500/-. The opposite parties did not specify any reason for the non-payment of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant was also entitled to get Rs.20,000/- for the marriage of the complainant’s daughter. In spite of proper application, the opposite parties did not grant the benefit.

5. The non-payment of deserved amount and the money under marriage benefit scheme of daughter are clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. This caused much pain and mental agony to the complainant.

6. The cause of action for this complaint arouse in 2019 and continuously thereafter at Thadiyampadu kara within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

Hence the complainant prayed for the following reliefs :

a. The opposite parties may be asked to pay Rs.25,000/- with 14% interest as the balance amount entitled by the complainant as per the lump sum payment.

b. The opposite parties may be ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- with 14% interest as per the marriage benefit scheme.

c. The opposite parties may be asked to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for pain and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint.

d. Such other relief and deemed just and equitable also may be granted.

 

Opposite parties filed written version as follows :

1. Complainant being the owner and driver of heavy goods vehicle No.KL-06C-7583 had registered with code No.KMT/06/GVII/SE/604 with the opposite party on 23.8.2008.

2. He had remitted owner’s contribution for 13 years 7 months and towards contribution for 2 employees at the rate of Rs.400/- per month for 167 months (excess paid for 4 months) with retrospective effect from 1.8.2005 to 30.6.2019.

3. As per scheme, an employee retiring from Job at the age of 60 years on completion of 8 years service, he is entitled to pension. On retirement, amount paid to the scheme with applicable interest is refundable to the member and during the period of existence of membership, financial assistance for marriage of daughter etc. were also provided as per scheme.

4. On completion of 60 years, on 11.2.2019, total amount prevailing in his account being employee’s contribution was Rs.16300 + Rs.400 (excess paid) and owner’s contribution Rs.24,450/-. These amounts with interest Rs.15,320/- (total Rs.56,470/-) was refunded to the (cont....3)

- 3 -

complainant’s bank account on 22.5.2019. Complainant remitted Rs.400/- per month for 2 employees. Out of this, he had remitted Rs.200/- only towards his contribution being an employee and from this, Rs.50/- was set apart for various funds like pension fund Rs.25/-, administrative fund account Rs.12.50/- and other welfare working fund Rs.12.50/- etc. Balance Rs.150/- per month was credited to Provident Fund as the owner’s contribution along with employee’s contribution. So the eligible amount in his account was Rs.56,470/- only.

5. From 1.3.2019, pension at the rate of Rs.1,475/- and from 1.4.2019 at the rate of Rs.1,575/- was allowed to the complainant. An amount of Rs.10,925/- was credited to his bank account being the pension from 1.3.2019 to 30.9.2019.

6. As per paragraph 61(B) of amended Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme 2019, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is to be allowed if there is a continuous service of 2 years, at the time of marriage of daughter. When the marriage was conducted on 7.1.2019, complainant was in arrears for 3 years and 2 months from 1.11.2015. Since he had no continuous service at the time of his daughter’s marriage, 2^nd opposite party rejected the application of the complainant. He has filed representation before 1^st opposite party and rejected the same on the ground mentioned above. He has not utilised the right of appeal before the Board. Complaint is baseless. Proper procedure was followed in his applications.

Since right of appeal exists and the present claim is not sustainable before this Commission, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Eventhough opposite party filed written version, they were absent during the dates of posting continuously and no representation also on their behalf.

Complainant filed chief affidavit and marked the following documents.

1. Ext.P1 – Identity card dated 28.7.2008 issued by 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.

2. Ext.P2 – Receipt dated 26.2.2019 issued by 2^nd opposite party in respect of payment of Rs.5099/- towards arrears of contribution with interest to the scheme from July 2015 to February 2019.

3. Ext.P3 - Repudiation letter dated 18.7.2019 issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant stating that during the time of marriage, complainant was in arrears being employee’s contribution, he is not entitled to the marriage financial assistance.

(All above documents are photocopies).

4. Ext.P4 – Leaflet (printed) issued by District Monitoring Committee describing various benefits under welfare fund scheme for motor transport workers.

No oral evidence for complainant. Opposite parties were absent continuously and no oral or documentary evidence also adduced from their side. So, we are constrained to dispose of this complaint based on materials available on record. Heard complainant’s side.

We have examined the contentions of both sides and perused the documents produced by complainant.

(cont....4)

- 4 -

On a perusal of the above, following points arise for consideration :

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission ?

2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?

4. Costs of the complaint.

POINT Nos.1 to 3 :- Right to appeal to the Board is not a ground to resist the institution of this complaint. As per section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, provisions in this Act is in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law. So the contention of opposite party regarding unsustainability of complaint in this Commission is not correct and we repel the same. It is an admitted fact that complainant was a member of the scheme from 2008. Opposite parties have contended that complete amount as per the scheme was given to the complainant and pension was also granted under the scheme. On the other hand, complainant’s allegations are that deserved amount based on the scheme was not given to him on retirement.

Complainant claims that he is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- more from opposite parties based on contributions made by him. But he has not produced documents to establish that he is entitled to that amount also. Opposite parties have denied the claim. In the absence of evidence, it is not possible to hold that complainant is entitled for the amount Rs.25,000/-.

Another allegation raised by the complainant is with regard to disallowance of financial assistance of Rs.20,000/- for her daughter’s marriage. In this regard, contentions of opposite parties are found to be unsustainable.

Opposite parties contended that as per the amendment made in 2019, in paragraph 61 B of the scheme, a continuous service of two years as on the date of marriage of daughter is necessary. It is stated that on the date of marriage on 7.1.2019, complainant was in arrears for 3 years and 2 months from 1.11.2015. As he was not having continuous service of 2 years on the date of marriage, his application was rejected by the District Executive Officer. Representation made before Chief Executive Officer was also rejected as per Ext.P3 stating that complainant’s contribution was in arrears for 3 years as on the date of marriage. Opposite parties have not produced relevant scheme as amended in 2019. In website also, no amendment is seen made. As per copy of scheme available in website, no such condition is seen prescribed. Besides, if any such condition was incorporated in 2019, it would not affect the right of complaint as he was a member of the fund from 2005 and had continuous service from that period. His membership was not cancelled or suspended during the time of marriage. Moreover, such condition if any, has prospective effect only.

 

(cont....5)

 

 

 

- 5 -

As per Paragraph 61 B, financial assistance shall be granted to the members of the fund for the marriage of their daughter subject to conditions specified in sub paragraph (2) to (5) of the same. Sub paragraphs are not relevant to the facts of the case. Ext.P3 repudiation letter given by 1^st opposite party is in a casual manner. Opposite parties cannot contend that he was not a member of the scheme. He had been admitted to the scheme in 2008 as seen from Ext.P1. Besides, they have received the arrear contribution with interest on 26.2.2019 without any objection. No demand notice in respect of arrears was seen given by opposite parties. Considering the nature and facts of the case, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In these circumstances, we find that complainant is entitled to get financial assistance from opposite parties.

Hence Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative.

So we direct the opposite parties to give the applicable amount of Rs.20000/- to the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to allow compensation.

POINT No.4 :- Considering the facts of the case, opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3000/- towards costs of the complaint. Amounts directed to be paid above should be given to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which it would fetch 9% interest p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation.

In the result, complaint is allowed to the above extent.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 11^th day of November, 2021

 

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR., PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

(cont....6)

- 6 -

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Identity card dated 28.7.2008 issued by 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.

Ext.P2 - Receipt dated 26.2.2019 issued by 2^nd opposite party in respect of payment

of Rs.5099/- towards arrears of contribution with interest to the scheme from

July 2015 to February 2019.

Ext.P3 - Repudiation letter dated 18.7.2019 issued by 1^st opposite party to the

complainant stating that during the time of marriage, complainant was in arrears

being employee’s contribution, he is not entitled to the marriage financial assistance.

Ext.P4 - Leaflet (printed) issued by District Monitoring Committee describing various benefits

under welfare fund scheme for motor transport workers.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT