BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY

FRIDAY, 11^th day of March, 2016

FIRST APPPEAL No. 7/2015

The Assistant Commissioner,

Employees’ Provident Fund Office,

100 feet Road, Puducherry.                   …………..                                     Appellant

                                                                           Vs.

1. L.Sundararajan,

    No.4, Anthoniar Koil Street,

    Kumaraguru Nagar (behind Kandan Complex),

    Puducherry.                                              ……….           Respondent/Complainant

2. The Branch Manager,

    Life Insurance Corporation (No.802),

    No.4, Armenian Street,

    Chennai – 600 001.

3. The Branch Manager,

    Life Insurance Corporation,

    Anna Salai, Puducherry.

4. The Divisional Manager,

    Life Insurance Corporation,

    Vellore.                                              …………                  Respondents/O.P.s 1 to 3

 (On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.30/2012, dt.07.04.2015 of the District  Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry)

C.C.No.30/2012

L.Sundararajan,

No.4, Anthoniar Koil Street,

Kumaraguru Nagar (behind Kandan Complex),

Puducherry.                                                  ………..                                           Complainant

                                                                            Vs.

1. The Branch Manager,

    Life Insurance Corporation (No.802),

    No.4, Armenian Street,

    Chennai – 600 001.

2. The Branch Manager,

    Life Insurance Corporation,

    Anna Salai, Puducherry.

3. The Divisional Manager,

    Life Insurance Corporation,

    Vellore.

4. The Assistant Commissioner,

    Employees’ Provident Fund Office,

    100 feet Road, Puducherry.              …………..                       Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,

PRESIDENT

TMT. K.K.RITHA,

MEMBER

THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,

MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr.C.Elangovan,

Advocate, Puducherry

FOR THE RESPONDENTS/O.Ps:

Respondent/ Complainant – Party in person

Respondents 2 and 3 - Exparte

Mr.S.P.Vasudevan, Advocate,

Advocate, Puducherry    -  for R4.

O   R    D    E    R

(By Tmt.K.K.Ritha,  M.A., M.H.R., B.L., Member)

            This appeal is filed by the 4^th opposite party in C.C.No.30/2012. The complainant has filed  the complaint. Aggrieved by the order  of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry wherein, the Assistant Commission, Employees’ Provident Fund, Puducherry is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and the opposite parties 1 to 3  are directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

            2. The 1^st respondent/complainant is a member of Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme and preferred to finance from E.P.F. account to the Life Insurance Corporation.  He had opened a Money Back Policy with O.P.s 1 to 3 and the sum assured is Rs.50,000/-.  The annual premium is Rs.4,310/- for fifteen years and assigned the E.P.F. Office for the payment of premium with an option to receive the survival benefits of the sum assured on completion of five years of policy on each occasion and the remaining  50% of the sum assured with accrued bonus to be payable on the date of maturity.  The policy commenced from 28.08.1995 to 28.08.2009 and the policy maturity date is 28.08.2010. As per the terms, the survival date of first installment is on 28.08.2000 and 25% of sum assured is Rs.12,500/-, the 2^nd installment is on 28.08.2005 and 25% of the sum assured is Rs.12,500/- which has to be transferred to Provident Fund Account on the said survival date by respondents 1 to 3 and for this Provident Fund Authority will pay interest at 9.5%  and 9% p.a. respectively.  The remaining amount of 50% on the sum assured is Rs.25,000/- during which accrued bonus of Rs.32,500/- have to be transferred to the Provident Fund Account on the maturity date up to 28.08.2010 and the Provident Fund Authority will pay interest as per the norms. 

3. From the records, it is clear that R2 to R4 have not received the premium continuously from appellant (E.P.F.) and moreover it has been paid belatedly. appellant has not denied this. The only statement made by R4 is that there is no prayer against them in the complaint, in the written arguments or in the cross-examination of the complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there is no prayer against the appellant by R1/complainant.

            4. It is observed that the appellant party in person has not made any specific prayer against appellant, but, in his written arguments he had mentioned that

 “the opposite parties/respondents 1 to 4 made me suffer loss and injury due to their negligent and deficiency in service and further I am 63 years old having heart ailment could not be tolerated for getting the claims for the genuine investment needed to face struggling with mental agony from the entrusted E.P.F.O. and L.I.C. and it is some sort of harassment.”

            5. Even though there is no prayer against appellant, the concept of Consumer Protection Act is to observe the Principles of Natural Justice and to give relief of the specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to the consumers.  It is crystal clear that the appellant had failed in its duty in not making the payment of premium promptly as entrusted by the appellant. The appellant is answerable for the dereliction of its duty which had caused undue sufferings, mental agony and monetary loss to the appellant.  Hence, the appellant has to be compensated for the lapse committed by the appellant.

            6. Hence,  the appeal stands dismissed.

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2016

(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)

PRESIDENT

(K.K.RITHA)

MEMBER

(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)

MEMBER