Orissa

Jajapur

CC/19/2016

Manmath Barik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Konark Jute Ltd.(Govt. of Odisha) - Opp.Party(s)

P.s.Mallick.

08 Aug 2018

ORDER

                             IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                              Dated the 8 th day of August ,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.19 of 2016

Manmath Barik    S/O  Lrushna ch.Barik

Vill. Madhupur , P.O. Kanikapada ,  

P.S  Mangalpur , Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                                                      …… ……....Complainant .                                                                      

                   (Versus)

1.Manager,  Konark Jute Ltd,  A subsidiary Unit of  IDCOL  ,At/P.O. Dhanmandal  

Dt.Jajpur.

2.Regional  Provident Fund  Commissioner, Bhubaneswar ,

3.Post Master,Head post office,Jajpur ,At/P.O/Dist.Jajpur .

                                                                                                                                                      …………………..Opp.Parties.                                                            

For the Complainant:                                   Sri  P.K.Das,P.K.Mallik, Sri C.R.Ojha, Advocates.

For the Opp.Party  No.1                             Sri P.K.Lenka ,Advocate.

For the Opp.Party No.2                             Sri  S.S.Mishra, Enforcement officer(EPFO)

For the Opp.Party No.3                             Sri A.K.Das,Advocate                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                           Date of order:  08. 08. 2018.

SHRI   JIBAN  BALLAV  DAS ,  PRESIDENT  .

                The petitioner Manmath Barik was serving under the O.P.no.1 (Manager, Konark Jute Ltd) a subsidiary unit of IDCOL ,At/P.O/Dhanmandal, Dt.Jajpur .

                The petitioner retired from his service on 31.03.2017  under Voluntary scheme . After retirement the petitioner has not received his provident fund money bearing  P.F. A/C No.OR-1885/2483.  On 17.09.14 the petitioner 1^st time came to know that on 22.06.11 a sum of Rs.11,526/- has been transferred to an A/C bearing No.611961  of the Head post office ,Jajpur  by virtue of cheque bearing No. 666859.  It is important to mention here that A/C No.611961  never belong to the petitioner nor the petitioner have got any savings account with the post  and Telegraph Deptt  i.e Head post office, Jajpur. Rather the petitioner have got A/C at S.B.I , Mangalpur branch bearing A/C No.11309221599.

                The petitioner intimated the above fact by Regd.post to O.P.no.2 who is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar   on 17.09.14 by Regd.post and again on 14.10.14 . On 28.11.14 the petitioner intimated this fact to the Commissioner, Employment Provident Fund New Delhi .  Lastly the petitioner intimated to O.p.no.2 on 14.08.15. Inspite of best efforts on the petitioner no  action was taken by O.p.no.2 for which the petitioner suffered a lot. Thus due to inaction of the O>p.no.2 the petitioner was forced to visit this Fora  by filing this application . The cause of action arose on 17.09.14  when the petitioner came to know the provident fund amount has been transferred to the Head post Office, jajpur  in A/C No. 611961. Hence the prayer to release Rs.11,526/- the provident fund amount of the petitioner along with a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards negligence of the O.P ,cost of litigation etc. The petition of the petitioner is supported by affidavit which is signed in English .

                On the other hand the O.P.no.1 in their written objection inter alia denying the maintainability of this case admitted that the petitioner was an employee under the O.p.no.1 who took to VRS on 31.03.2007 . It is also admitted that the petitioner  is having  his  P.F A/C  No. OR 1885/2483 . According to the O.P.no.1 that  One Ashish Ku.Das  Legal Assistant-cum-1/C(HRD) in the HR Deptt. of O.P.no.1 was duly declared as Authorized Signatory to sign the documents relating to P.F matter on behalf of O.p.no.1 ( The Konark Jute Ltd) .This fact was intimated to the O.P.no.2 . The P.F Authorities vide letter No.KJ/HRD/MD/154 dt. 16.05.11  vide para-4 of the written version. The O>p.no.1 admitted that the Form No.19 purportedly submitted by the petitioner is a fraudulent and forged one  as the same  has not been signed by Authorized Signatory of O.p.no.1. The signature appearing in the said form and on the copy of the postal savings pass book never belong to the Authorized signatory  ,Ashish Ku. Das . As such the P.F authorities O.P.no.2 without proper inquiry and proper verification of  the signature    released Rs.11,526/-in  the so called postal  savings A/C  of the petitioner . The O.P.no.1  vide para-5  of the written version categorically mentioned that some fraud and foul play have committed in the matter for which the O.P.no.1 had no role to play. As such the O.P.no.1 prayed to dismiss the case against  the  O.P.no.1  as he had  no role to play in the fraudulent transaction if any that might have taken place .  The written version  of O.P.no.1 is supported by an affidavit .

                The O.P.no.2 in their written objection submitted that after going through the written objection of O.P.no.1 the matter was verified in their office and after examination of the record maintained in this respect it was found that the petitioner Manmath Barik joined in this establishment M/S Konark Jute Ltd, and allotted the P.F A/C No. OR/1885/2483 . It is also admitted  by O.P.no.2  that after retirement on VRS the petitioner claimed the provident fund amount vide claim ID No. ORBBS 110500006315  in claim form No.19. It is further stated by O.p.no.2 that the PF amount was disbursed in the postal savings A/C No.611961 at Sub post office, Dhanmandal which was released by virtue of cheque bearing No.666859 dt. 22.06.2011  amounting to  Rs.19,204/- and not  to the SBI, jajpur  SB A/C No.11309221599  by virtue  of cheque bearingNo.040146  dt.11.09.15 , after receiving the claim vide ID No.150800012973 . It is further contention of O.p.no.2 that as the petitioner has not received Rs.11,526/- , the matter needs  to be investigated  and after  investigation reply will be provided . The written objection was signed by S.K.Rath, Asst. P.F Commissioner(Legal)  on behalf of O.P.no.2.

                The O.P no.3 admitted regarding the fact that the petitioner was an employee of Manager,Konark Jute Ltd  who took VRS on 31.03.2007. The petitioner alleged that he has not received the PF amount Rs.11,526/- which has been transferred to A/C No.611961 at Jajpur Head post office by virtue of cheque No.666859 but as per the report of post master, jajpur Head office no such A/C No. i.e 611961  was opened under any scheme at Jajpur Head post office nor in any sub office under Jajpur  Head office. Further  on scrutiny of cheque register it transpires  that no cheque bearing No.666859 amounting to Rs.11,526/- was received at Jajpur Head post  office  from June-2011 till  19.03.2016 . So it is submitted that there was no laches  on the part of O.P.no.3 for which the case  against of O.P.no.3 may be  dismissed.

                On the above pleadings of the parties it is to be decided whether the petitioner is a consumer or not  and  Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for in the complaint petition ?

In view of the decision reported in 111(1999) CPJ-36-(SC) Supreme Court of India,  “Regional Provident Fund Vers. Shiv Kumar Joshi ,”  wherein it is held that :

“Consumer protection Act,1986-sections 2(1)(d),2(1)(O)-Consumer service-Employees provident Fund and Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952-sections 5(a),(d),6-Employees provident Fund Scheme,1952-para 30- “service”:Employees Provident Fund Scheme Amounts to service –“consumer” Members under Employees provident Fund Scheme are” consumer”- Regional provident Fund Commissioner, renders ‘ service” within scheme of Act- He discharges statutory functions for running scheme-Not delegated with soverign powers of State – it can not legally claim that facilities provided by “scheme” were not “service”-Services of Provident Fund commissioner in running scheme deemed to be availed of for consideration by Central Government for benefit of employees, treated as beneficiary within meaning of that word used in definition of consumer- Scheme is “service” within meaning of section 2(1)(o) and member “consumer” within meaning of section 2(1)(d) of Act. “

                In view of the above , the petitioner is a consumer and he is entitled to get benefit.

                We heard argument from both the sides extensively and scrutinized connected document filed by both contesting parties.

                Admitted fact is the petitioner is an ex-employee of  Manager, Konark Jute Ltd who took VRS on 31.02.2007 . The O.p.no.1,2 and 3 fairly admitted this aspect. The petitioner asserts that he has no savings A/C in the post office  which is re-ireterted  by O.P.no.3  in their written objection that the petitioner has neither any savings A/C in Dhanmandal nor in the Dist  Head post office, jajpur . This fact is also partly supported by O.p.no.1 and 2 . The O.P.no.2 in their written objection took a plea that the investigation in the matter was on and if anything wrong was found during the investigation ,the same shall be placed before this Fora. The O.P.no.3 in their written version categorically stated that no savings A/C bearing No.611961 was opened under any  scheme at Jajpur Head post office nor any sub office under Jajpur postal department. In para-5 of written objection it is pointly  mentioned, that on  further scrutiny of the cheque register, it is seen that no cheque bearing No.666859 amounting to Rs.11,526/- was received  at Jajpur Head office in between June-2011 till 19.03.2016. So the amount of rs.11,526/- was deposited through cheque is totally false ,baseless and mis-leading .

                During the course of hearing the petitioner himself submitted that he never signed in Odia  at any point of time and pointed us his signature  is English  appearing in the complaint petition , affidavit and vokalatnama . But the O.P.no.1  pointed out  vide Annexture-E where in the petitioner is shown to have signed his name in Odia which  is the Xerox copy of Post office savings A/C No.611961 . Considering the material  discrepancies appearing to the necked eye and blunt denial  by the petitioner that he never had any savings A/C with any post office ,jajpur and have got  A/C in SBI  Jajpur and have never signed in Odia during service carrier.  Thus  this Fora  came to this conclusion that PF authorities (O.P.no.2)  without proper verification of the signature and documents released the amount in favour of unknown fraudster in a fraudulent and forged manner as has been stated by  O.P.no.1  in para-4 of their written objection. During the course of argument the learned   counsel of O.P.no.1  submitted that since it transpires that fraud has been practiced in the matter it requires through police  investigation which   is necessary   to support   his contention  .  The learned counsel placed reliance in a decision in W.P(C) No.12238/2012 (Siba Prasad Das Vrs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Others) wherein Hon’ble High court observed that :  

                “ the aggrieved person is to approach the common law Forum for redressal of his grievance .”

                Law is well settled that question of fraud or impernuation or for that matter any other fraudulent activities is a clear question of facts which this Fora  can not adjudicate without proper investigation by Specialized Agency ,  especially when the record discloses that the amount of Rs.11,526/- was disbursed in favour of the petitioner  but unfortunately never reached the petitioner, forcing him to come to this Fora     for relief , by use of a cheque .

                The entire ga-mote of evidence on record discloses a clear case of forgery of signatures which appears to  the   necked eye  and this Fora  can not grant any relief  to the petitioner ,even though his savings have been taken away some body else .  Therefore this is a scam  in  miniature form   and the scamsture has to be nabbed in order to provide justice to the petitioner. Thus without proper investigation by the Specialized Agency like Crime Branch , the root of this whole affairs can not be un-earthed .

                Last but not least a combined reading of the written version of the three O.Ps poignantly made it clear that the O.P.no.1 attempted to put the blame on O.P.no.2 , while O.P.no.2 took the plea that the inquiry is on and as soon as it is revealed the same shall be placed before this For a. Going one step ahead, the O.P.no.1 demanded an investigation  to be made by placing reliance upon the decision of our own High Court as stated above. As earlier stated, the money was definitely released by O.p.no.2 but it has not reached the beneficiary who is the petitioner in this case. So a thorough probe by the economic offence wing of the Crime Branch  of the State police appears to be proper agency to look after the matter and fixed responsibility for such serious lapses.

                For our above observation at this  stage we are not able to provide any relief to the petitioner  .  And to provide justice  to the petitioner ,  we recommend for a Crime Branch investigation at the earliest . Inspector General of Police  Crime Branch is requested to conduct investigations of this mini scam  by  a  High level Team of the officers.  So that fraudster may be brought to light and the petitioner may got justice soon.

                Send a copy of this judgement to the Inspector  General of Police  ,Crime Branch for necessary action at his end.

                                      This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 8th day of  August,2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.