BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
FRIDAY, the 27th day of October, 2017
FIRST APPPEAL No. 19/2017
1. The Branch Manager,
State Express Transport Corporation (TN) Limited,
Opp. To Swadeshi Mill, Maraimalai
Adigal Salai, Puducherry.
2. The General Manager (Administration),
State Express Transport Corporation (TN) Limited,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ……………. Appellants
Vs.
M.Jayaraman,
S/o Muthulinga Padayachi,
C/o Sellappan,
No.26, First Main Street, East Vasal Nagar,
Nainarmandapam, Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry. …………….. Respondent
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.7/2015, dt.06.07.2017 by District Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.7/2015
M.Jayaraman,
S/o Muthulinga Padayachi,
C/o Sellappan,
No.26, First Main Street, East Vasal Nagar,
Nainarmandapam, Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry. …………….. Complainant
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager,
State Express Transport Corporation (TN) Limited,
Opp. To Swadeshi Mill, Maraimalai
Adigal Salai, Puducherry.
2. The General Manager (Administration),
State Express Transport Corporation (TN) Limited,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ……………. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU. S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru R.Soupramanian,
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 06.07.2017 made in C.C.7/2015.
2. The Opposite Parties before the District Forum are the appellants herein and the complainant therein is the respondent.
3. The parties are referred in the same position as they have been referred before the District Forum for the sake of convenience.
4. The gist of the complaint before the District Forum are set out hereunder:
The complainant was working as conductor in the opposite parties Corporation and was superannuated on 30.06.2013 after rendering a service for 27 years, 7 months and 5 days. He was a member of Provident Fund under the opposite parties. However, the Provident Fund has not been settled. Therefore, the complainant has filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- as compensation with interest at 15% p.a. from 01.07.2013 from the date on which the said amount is payable.
5. The reply version has filed by 1st respondent which was adopted by the 2nd respondent. The averments, in nutshell, are as follows:
The State Express Transport Corporation is a Government Undertaking providing service of passenger transportation facilities to the public without any profit motive. The Corporation is facing severe financial crisis and therefore the settlement could not be made and the Corporation is taking all efforts to settle the amount. The complainant had himself stated in the complainant that the opposite parties are liable for prosecution u/s 405 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the complainant has to avail proper legal action against the opposite parties and cannot invoke the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, ought to have impleaded the Administrtive Officer of the Corporation, Provident Fund Trust, which is a necessary party. Since the Administrative Officer has not been made as a party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. The complainant cannot be considered as a 'consumer' since the relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties is only that of employee and employer. The Corporation has settled the Provident Fund amount to their members who have retired in the month of May, 2012 and the Government is also taking steps to settle the amounts to the remaining members. Absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and hence the complaint is devoid of merits and hence the reply version sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. On behalf of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as CW1 before the District Forum and 6 documents were filed which were marked as Exs.C1 to C4. On the side of the opposite parties, no witness was examined and one document was marked which was marked as Ex.R1.
7. Before the District Forum, the following three points were formulated.
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?
8. On point No.1, the District Forum found that the complainant is a consumer. On point No.2, the District Forum found that the opposite parties settled the sum of Rs.1,54,718/- on 24.05.2016, when the matter was pending before the District Forum, though the complainant was entitled to Rs.1,87,945/- along with interest at 12% p.a. Therefore, the District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.33,227/-, being the balance amount of interest at 12% p.a. for the delayed payment of Provident Fund from 01.08.2013 to 24.05.2016 and order for subsequent interest on the said amount of Rs.33,227/- till realization and further it directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for loss and sufferings and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of proceedings.
9. As stated already, the opposite parties have filed the present appeal challenging the said order.
10. It is not in dispute that the complainant was a conductor in the Opposite Parties Corporation. It is also not disputed that the complainant was a member of Provident Fund and attained superannuation on 30.06.2013.
11. Unfortunately, the opposite parties Corporation did not settle his Provident Fund even after the complainant rendered service for 27 years, 7 months and 5 days. But, the complainant was made to file complaint before the District Forum for getting the lawful amount. Though it has been pleaded on behalf of the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party finding that it has no case, the opposite parties have settled the sum of Rs.1,54,718/- on 24.05.2016, when the matter was pending before the District Forum. However, the opposite parties have not settled the full amount with interest from 01.08.2013 to 24.05.2016. The appeal is filed only claiming interest. In our considered view that since the complainant has retired on 30.06.2013, the opposite parties should have paid the Provident Fund immediately thereof, which they failed to do so and hence the opposite parties are liable to pay interest for the said amount at 12% p.a., which is a reasonable interest fixed by the District Forum. The amount has been settled only on 24.05.2016 and hence from 01.08.2013 to 24.05.2016, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest for the delayed payment, which has been calculated as Rs.33,227/-. Therefore, in our considered view, the District Forum has justified in awarding the said amount to the complainant. The said amount will also carry interest till realization which is the order of the District Forum. The District Forum also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for loss and sufferings. In our considered view, the said view taken by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. The complainant was running from pillar to post to get the amount due to him. Had the complainant received the said amount even on the date it has become due, he could have better invested the same which would have given him some benefit after his retirement. Therefore, the said amount awarded by the District Forum is perfectly in order. Further, the District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs and in our view, it is a justifiable amount.
12. In view of the above stated decision, we are of the view that the order of District Forum is well within the four corners of law which, in our considered view, need not be set-aside or modified.
13. In fine, the appeal stands rejected. The order of the District Forum made in C.C. 7/2015, dated 06.07.2017 is confirmed. No costs.
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2017
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
