Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/331/2014

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.E. VALARMATHI - Opp.Party(s)

S. SRINIVASAN

23 Nov 2021

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH               PRESIDENT

Tmt  Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                           MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.331/2014

(Against order in CC.NO.125/2011 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (North)

 

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

 

 The Regional  Provident Fund Commissioner

Tamil Nadu and Pondichery

Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation                       M/s. K. Prabhakaran

37, Royapettah High Road                                                Counsel for

Chennai – 600 014                                               Appellant / 2^nd Opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

 

1.       M.E.Valarmathi

W/o. E.Murugan

No.2/385, Mariamman Koil Street

Kannadapalayam , Pothur                                  Served, called absent

Chennai – 600 062                                     Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.       M/s. Aarveem Impex

          (Manufacturers and Exporters)

          Head Office No.23 and 23A                               M/s. Subba Reddy

          Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar                                  Counsel for

          Chennai – 600 030                                 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st opposite party

 

          The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.13.3.2014 in CC.No.125/2011.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for appellant and the 2^nd Respondent and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

 

1.       This appeal has been filed as against the order dt.13.3.2014 in CC.No.125/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North), directing the appellant/2^nd opposite party herein to pay a sum of Rs.23358/- towards EPF amount and Rs.7761/- towards the EPS amount alongwith 10% interest p.a., from 24.8.2011  alongwith compensation and cost of Rs.10000/-.

 

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

           The complainant had joined the service of the 1^st opposite party as tailor on 4..2002, and was working in the factory of the 1^st opposite party.  During her employment the 1^st opposite party had deducted PF contribution from her salary after 90 days of joining service.  The code number assigned to the 1^st opposite party by the 2^nd opposite party was TN36842/4173.  The 1^st opposite party was deducting the contribution towards provident fund from the salary of the complainant and remitting the same to the 1^st opposite party as per the provisions of the EPF.  While so, the complainant had resigned the job on 31.5.2006 due to personal reasons.  She had approached the 1^st opposite party alongwith relevant final settlement claim form for affixing her signature.  The 1^st opposite party also had counter signed the claim settlement form.  Thereafter the 1^st opposite party had issued a letter to the 2^nd opposite party  requesting to settle the PF amount of the complainant at the earliest.  In the claim settlement form itself the complainant had given her SB account Number held at Ambattur Post Office bearing No.1066249.  After submitting the form though the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party office for settlement of PF amount almost every day.  While so during the middle of April 2009, the complainant wrote a letter to the 1^st opposite party and thereafter to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties through the Democratic Labour Union on 25.5.2009.  Inspite of receipt of those letters, the complainant had not received any reply.  Finally she had issued a legal notice to the 1^st opposite party on 23.7.2009, again another notice on 15.3.2010.  For which the 2^nd opposite party sent a reply on 31.3.2010 stating that amount had already been settled during November 2008 by sending Rs.23358/- towards EPF and Rs.7761/- towards EPS through ECS to SBI park town SB Account No.20002209434 vide payment item Nos.11779 and 11813 respectively on 29.11.2008.  The complainant would submit that in Form 19 itself, she had given all her account details pertaining to post office account.  Inspite of repeated requests the PF amount had not been settled to the complainant.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for settlement of the PF amount alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental agony. 

 

3.       The said complaint was resisted by the 1^st opposite party  stating that the complainant had become a member of the 2^nd opposite party as an employee of the 1^st opposite party  and the 1^st opposite party had then and there sent the EPF amount of complainant to the 2^nd opposite party in time.  The letter and representations sent by the complainant had  also been forwarded to the 2^nd opposite party.   The complainant had written a letter dt.14.2.2009 to the 1^st opposite party stating that her PF amount had been wrongly credited in favour of one E.Valarmarthi instead of M.E.Valarmathi.  If at all the complainant had any grievance it had to be settled only by the 2^nd opposite party.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.       The 2^nd opposite party had filed their version interalia stating that 2^nd opposite party had already settled the relief sought for by the complainant, hence there is no negligence on their part.  The PF amount was credited to the employee as per the details furnished by the employee as per paragraph 3 of the version viz. Member Name:  M.E.Valarmathi,  Father’s Name:  Ekambaram,  Date of Birth: 18.4.1980;  Date of joining : 1.3.2002;  Date of leaving :31.5.2006;  The 2^nd opposite party states that they duly processed the same and settled the payments on 29.11.2008 authorizing payment of EPF for Rs.23358/- and EPS Rs.7761/-.  The cheques were duly despatched and realised.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.       In order to prove the claim on the side of the parties, they have filed their respective proof affidavits and documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A9 on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to B7 on the side of the opposite parties. 

 

6.       The District Commission after analysing the evidence available on records and after hearing the parties had passed an order by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party, and directed the 2^nd opposite party to pay the EPF and EPS amount @ Rs.23,358/- and Rs.7761/- respectively alongwith interest and compensation and cost of Rs.10000/-.  Aggrieved over the said order, the 2^nd opposite party is before us now as appellant. 

 

7.       The learned counsel for the appellant 2^nd Respondent/1^st opposite party had forwarded the claim alongwith details of the employer duly attested.  The same was duly processed by the appellant/ 2^nd opposite party on receipt of the details.  Subsequently, it was observed by the appellant that the account No.TN/36842/4173 pertains to one ME Valarmathi, whereas in the claim form it was given as E.Valarmathi.  Hence clarification was sought from the employer. 

 

8.       The learned counsel for the 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st opposite party would submit that the appellant had committed wrong in crediting the PF amount to someother account, without noticing the details furnished.  The District Commission had rightly held that as per Ex.B5 and B6 the name of the complainant was rightly given as M.E.Valarmathi, inspite of that the amount was wrongly credited.  There is no negligence on their part.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 

 

9.       The further submission of the appellant is that the appellant is the custodian of the fund established under Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, and a statutory duty is cast upon them to make the payment to the eligible beneficiary without commission or omission as it is acting in the capacity of a garnishee.  As the employer is the best judge of their own employee it is better known to them only.  This appellant acted in good faith   approved the claim attested and forwarded  and sent the amount to State Bank of India.  The appellant had only attested the bank name and other particular furnished in the appropriate place in the claim forms.  The employer/ 1^st opposite party is trying to shift their responsibility.  Without considering all these aspects the District Forum had erroneously passed the order, which is liable to be set aside. 

 

 10.    The 1^st Respondent/ complainant remained absent before this commission. We have heard the submissions of the appellant and the 2^nd Respondent/1^st opposite party herein, perused the materials placed on record and passed the following order. 

 

11.     Be it as it may, a perusal of the record under Ex.B2 Form of EPF scheme the name of the complainant was given as E.Valarmathi, whereas the account number is the same which is stated to be given for the employer of the complainant.  Therefore, the dispute is with regard to the identification of the employee.  When there is a question with regard to the facts of a complaint, the same has to be established only before the appropriate civil court, by adducing detailed evidence.  Neither the 1^st opposite party, nor the appellant/ 2^nd opposite party had   established that both E.Valarmathi and M.E.Valarmathi are one and the same, or there are two different persons.  As per Ex.B1 the work sheet Form 10-C it shows that the name of the employee as E.Valarmathi.  But in the same page down it is mentioned as “Member’s name as per camps: M E Valamathi”.  Therefore there is an ambiguity with regard to the identification of the employee.  Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal is liable to be disposed of with observation that there needs elaborate evidence to find out the correct person who is entitled to get the amount, which can be done only by adducing evidence.  In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be allowed by dismissing the complaint.

 

12.     In the result, the appeal allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission in CC.No.125/2011 dt.13.3.2014, and the complaint is dismissed.   There is no order as to cost throughout.   

 

           

 

  S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                               R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

INDEX : YES / NO

Rsh/d/rsj/