Complaint filed on: 08-06-2007<br /> Case Remanded on: 20-11-2008<br /> Disposed on: 30-06-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.1101/2007<br /> DATED THIS THE 30th JUNE 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainant: - S.Amirthalingam, aged 55 years,<br /> R/at flat No.2002, II floor, Sharada homes, No.120, Mallespalya main <br /> Road, Bangalore-75 <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Opposite parties: - 1. Larsen and Toubro Ltd,<br /> Regd. Office L & T house,<br /> Ballard Estate, Mumbain-01<br /> H.Q. Mount Poonamallee Road,<br /> P&OD, Manapakkam, <br /> Chennai-89<br /> 2. Chairman<br /> Life Insurance Corporation of India<br /> Central office, Yogakshema,<br /> Jeevanmarg, Mumbai-21<br /> 3. Larsen and Toubro Ltd,<br /> ECC division No.19,<br /> Kumara Krupa Road,<br /> Sundaram Arcade,<br /> Sheshadripuram, <br /> Bangalore-20<br /> 4. Larsen and Toubro Ltd,<br /> Senior officer,<br /> Superannuation Trust, <br /> L & T house, Ballard Estate,<br /> Mumbai-01 <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against Opposite parties [hereinafter called as Ops for short) in brief is that, he joined 1st OP on 20-6-1984 as Sup.A Grade Engineer and was promoted from time to time and served in that organization under M3 cadre. That he resigned to his job of 1st OP on 6-5-2002 as senior manager and was drawing a basic salary of Rs.14,650/-with other allowance. That 1st OP formulated L&T senior officer’s superannuation scheme covering the officers from Sup. A grade with basic salary of Rs.2,700/- and above with the 2nd OP who is managing super annuation fund. That he opted for option no.4 which prescribed pension for members own life with 15 years guaranteed period. The criteria for releasing the pension amount to the fund. That one should have serve in the organization for a period of 15 years. That he has successfully rendered service for 18 years from 20-6-1984 till 6-5-2002. His resignation letter was accepted by 1st OP on 6-5-2002 and he became entitled for contribution amount with interest. That from date of resignation till today he repeatedly contacted him to release commutation/contribution and monthly pension payable commencing from June 2002. All the papers were forwarded to the 2nd OP but he has failed to release commutation amount. That he got issued a legal notice on 17-2-2007 demanding the entire amount pertaining to superannuation fund together with monthly pension from June-2002. But the 2nd OP through his reply dated 14-3-2007 told him to wait for a direction from 1st OP. But so far, Ops have not paid his superannuation fund, therefore has prayed for a direction to the Ops to settle his superannuation fund and commutation amount together with monthly pension and award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest. <br /> <br /> 2. Ops No.1 and 3 appeared through their advocate have filed version, contending that the complaint is not maintainable and this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. That the complainant is not a consumer and that superannuation benefits is mater of discretion. The complainant has resigned his job cannot demand the superannuation benefits. That the complainant was working at Mumbai. Therefore this forum has no jurisdiction over subject matter. That the complainant has resigned to his job on his own and joined service of another competitor of the company which fact was suppressed by the complainant. That the complainant is not eligible for superannuation benefits as per rules and regulations governing the said scheme. Therefore it is the discretion of the management and it was made known to the complainant. These Ops denying the claim of the complainant stated that his non-eligibility was made known to him on 19-9-2002. That the complaint is barred by limitation and cause of action does not arise by issue of a legal notice. Therefore the complaint is barred by limitation and thus Ops denying other allegation of the complainant have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. OP No.2 has filed his version and contended that the contract of insurance is only between the trust and this OP No.2 and there is no contract between employees i.e. the complainant and himself. That 1st OP on 27-11-1970 submitted a proposal to them to grant the benefits as described in the trust deed and under the rules of L&T Ltd. Senior Officer’s Superannuation scheme and effect the necessary deferred annuities as provided for in the Trust deed. Thereafter the master policy was issued. That the members of the Trust are entitled to benefits under the master policy. That they on receipt of intimation and discharge form they will pay the amount accrued to the benefits of the members of the Trust. Therefore contended that there is no binding contract between the complainant with this 2nd OP. That they have not received any intimation from 1st OP under Senior Officer’s Superannuation scheme regarding release of any amount to the complaint and stated that the 2nd OP cannot release Superannuation benefits on his own directly to the complainant and he shall acted only on the intimation received from Trustee of L &T Ltd Senior officer’s Superannuation scheme and thus he denying any deficiency at his end explained that on his own he is not liable to be the complainant and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. OP No.4 has also filed separate version which is nothing but repetition of the version filed by Ops No.1 and 3 as such we do not wish to repeat the version of OP No.4.<br /> <br /> 5. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has relied upon a copy of the resignation letter he had given to 1st OP, reply of 2nd OP, copy of a legal notice he got issued to the Ops, and reply of OP No.1 dated 1-10-2002 and two more correspondences regarding payment of benefits to the complainant. Ops have produced master policy copy which contain conditions of the scheme and have also produced a copy of senior officer’s Superannuation scheme Rules and conditions with amendment brought to the scheme by way of introduction Rule 7 (A) to Rule 7. The complainant letter has also produced original documents of the copies he has produced alongwith complaint. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 6. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and the complaint filed is within the period of limitation?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant proves that Ops have caused deficiency in their service in not paying senior officer’s Superannuation scheme fund?<br /> 3. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings are as under:<br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: In the negative <br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: In the negative <br /> 3. Answer Point No.3: To see the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Answer on Point No.1 & 2: The complainant as evident from his complaint has prayed for a direction to Ops to pay him Superannuation Fund, Commutation amount and Monthly pension from June 2002 and also award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. But in the course of arguments the counsel for both the parties constrained themselves regarding non-payment of superannuation fund of senior officer’s of 1st OP created under the scheme called “Senior Officer’s Superannuation Scheme”. Thus this complaint is now confined to an enquiry with regard to the non-payment of Superannuation scheme fund.<br /> <br /> 9. The complainant has admitted that he resigned to his job with 1st OP on 6-5-2002, that means by he was relieved of that job with 1st OP by accepting his resignation with effect from 6-5-2002. Therefore his right started from that date for his claim of superannuation benefits from the Ops, we are seeing copy of the letter of 1st OP addressed to the complainant on 3-5-2002 in which OP has told the complainant that Ahmedabad regional office will settle his salary and allowance, the salary in lieu of un-availed privilege leave, provident fund and Gratuity dues. Then 1st OP sent another communication to the complainant intimating about the officers who are eligible to participation in L&T senior officer’s superannuation scheme. There is no dispute that this complainant become a member of that scheme. Thereafter, OP No.1 on 7-10-2002 addressed a letter to the complainant in reply to the complainant’s letter dated 21-9-2002 informing the complainant to contact their P&OD-HQ regarding Superannuation benefits. Thereafter the complainant on receipt of this letter got a legal notice issued to the Deputy Managing Director, L&T, ECC division, Chennai on 12-8-2002 to settle his superannuation scheme benefits. In this legal notice the complainant has also made reference to the letter of OP dated 26-6-2002 referring to his claim. Thereafter the complainant it looks forgotten the issue and did not take up the matter till he got another legal notice issued on 17-2-2007 reminding OP No.2 to pay his superannuation fund. Though in this notice there is the complaint is confined to superannuation fund. Therefore it is evident that the complaint after getting legal notice issued on 12-8-2002 did not follow up until he got issued another legal notice on 17-7-2007. That notice is got issued for the purpose of filing this complaint and filed this complaint on 5-6-2007. The complainant therefore from 17-8-2002 after issue of legal notice has not filed this complaint within two years as provided under section 24A of CP Act and therefore the complaint is barred by limitation. Issue of notice on 17-7-2002 after expiry of limitation do not save the limitation and also do not confir fresh cause of action. <br /> <br /> 10. The counsel for Ops argued that it has formed a trust for managing the welfare of the employees and have flouted the scheme called Senior officer’s Superannuation Scheme under which the officers of 1st OP from particular rank are entitled to become members of that scheme and under the scheme at the time of superannuation officer’s trust would pay certain monitory benefits called as Superannuation fund and in that regard the company’s decision regarding classification or eligibility of employees for the purpose scheme is final and binding on all the parties concerned. Learned counsel, also inviting our attention to a deed of variations, under which amendment was brought to the scheme by inserting Rule 7(A) under section III. This amendment has come into effect from 30-4-2002 the amended Rule 7 (a) reads as under: <br /> <br /> “The Trustees may not vest superannuation benefits on an employee if he carries on or is associated with such activity which in the opinion of the company, is competing with or is detrimental to or against the interest of the company”. <br /> <br /> 11. The learned counsel for Ops submitted that the complainant after quitting job by way of resignation of 1st OP has joined another company which is carrying on construction business similar to 1st OP which is competing with them and therefore the trust which is vested with the power of denying the benefits has denied it and therefore the complainant is not entitle for the benefits. <br /> <br /> 12. The counsel for Ops had given interrogatories to the complainant who has filed his reply. Out of 14 interrogatories, Ops raised few of them, and reply given by the complainant to them are very much material to decide the complaint and they are referred as under. The first question asked by Ops is that the complainant voluntarily resigned employment under L&T (ECC division) for which the complainant has answered in the affirmative, the 2nd question was that his resignation was accepted through letter dated 3-5-2002 is also accepted by the complainant, the 3rd question which is important is that the complainant resigned his job with 1st OP since he wanted to switch over to a better prospect for which the complainant has answered in the affirmative. The 4th question is that the complainant joined as an officer in Hindustan Construction Company limited after resigning in L&T. The complainant has answered admitting to have joined Hindustan Construction Company limited. The 10th question is that the complainant has not made any contribution while in his service with 1st OP towards Senior Officer’s Superannuation Scheme, for which the complainant has answered that superannuation scheme does not provide for any contribution from the employees and the complainant has also admitted that he has not contributed towards that fund. Rest of the questions are not very much material except the complainant contending that Hindustan Construction company limited to which he has joined has jointly taken up several projects in joint venture with 1st OP during 2002-03. This admission of the complainant proves that the complainant after voluntarily resigning his job with 1st OP jointed another construction company. Rule 7(A) of senior officer’s superannuation scheme says that the trust of the scheme may not vest superannuation benefits on an employee who carries or associated with such activity which in the opinion of the company is detrimental to or against the interest of the company. The mere says of the complainant that the Hindustan Construction company limited in the year 2002-03 had some constructions in joint venture with 1st OP may not preclude trustees who have invoked the bar imposed under Rule 7 (A). Therefore the complainant who voluntarily quit the job and joined another company which is carrying on the similar business of 1st OP is not entitled for the benefits under superannuation scheme. The complainant has admittedly has not contributed anything towards that fund. Therefore when the trust on the discretion vested with them under the scheme refused to pay the fund for the reason that the complainant has joined another competing company it cannot be hold as illegal. The complainant who has not contributed to that fund can not become a consumer and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant arguing that the compliant is maintainable for recovery of superannuation benefits relied upon a decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in I (2003) CPJ, page-81. But the facts of that case have not relevance of to the facts of this case. Hence for the above reason, the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed, with the result, we answer Point No-1 and 2 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Both the parties to bear their own cost. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th June 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />