Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he joined M/s. Shree Niwas Cotton Mills Limited/O.P.No.1 in March-1973 and was working there till June-1977. During his employment, the employer deducted some amount every month from his salary as per the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 towards contribution of provident fund account. The complainant resigned from his service in June-1977. At that time, total contribution of Rs.47,357.63/- was shown as contribution towards provident fund account. Pass book was issued to the complainant and the entries were shown in it. The complainant has not withdrawn any amount till filing of the complaint. As per information given by the O.P.No.4, the O.P.No.1 was exempted u/s 17 of the E.P.F. Act upto 31st March, 1992. The said exemption was cancelled with effect from 1st April, 1992. The opponents have not paid the provident fund amount to the complainant. The complainant started his own textile business. However, in 1990-91, he had to close his business. The complainant requested the opponents to pay his provident fund amount but they failed. The complainant approached Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bandra, in April-2005. As per his direction, the complainant wrote letter dated 18th April, 2005 tothe Official Liquidator. The complainant also wrote letter dated 5th May, 2005 to the Directors of O.P.No.1. Vide letter dated 9th July, 2005, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner informed the complainant that his name is not in the statement submitted by the Liquidator of O.P.No.1. The complainant wrote letter to the Liquidator dated 23rd August, 2005. The complainant received letter dated 25th October, 2005 from the Assistant Official Liquidator. The complainant send letter dated 9th November, 2005 to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Again, on 23rd October, 2010, the complainant wrote letter to Liquidator as well as to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. In spite of several requests to the opponents, they failed to pay the provident fund amount. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for refund of provident fund amount of Rs.47357.63/- with interest and also for compensation.
2) As there is delay, the complainant has filed application for condonation of delay. According to the complainant, delay is not deliberate. It is due to lack of reciprocation on the part of opponents. Therefore, delay may be condoned.
3) The O.P.No.1 & 3 filed their written statement. It is submitted that the complaint against them is not maintainable. Delay is not properly explained. The complainant is barred by limitation. There is inordinate delay and the same is not properly explained therefore delay can not be condoned.
4) The O.P.No.4 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner filed reply. It is submitted that the name of complainant was not there in the statement. Therefore, this opponent could not pay the amount.
5) The O.P.No.2 remained absent. Therefore, he is proceeded ex-parte.
6) Heard the arguments of learned advocate for the complainant, O.P.No.1, 3 & the representative of O.P.No.4 on the application for delay condonation.
7) According to the complainant, he was serving with O.P.No.1 since March-1973 till June-1977. He resigned in June-1977. Thereafter, he started his own textile business. It was closed in 1990-91. He also approached Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bandra for refund of his provident fund amount. According to him, he made several requests to the opponents to refund his provident fund amount. Vide letter dated 9th July, 2005, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had already informed the complainant that his name is not there in the statement. Therefore, it was necessary for the complainant to file complaint within time limit as per Sec.24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Simply writing letter will not extend the period of limitation. The complainant already resigned in the year-1977 and he was running his own textile business till 1990-91. Thereafter also, in the year-2005, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner informed him that his name is not the statement. Thus, the complainant was aware about his provident fund amount. There was sufficient time with the complainant to file complaint within time limit. There is delay of 35 years. The delay is inordinate delay. According to the complainant, it is the statutory liability to refund the amount. Even this fact is presumed still there is specific provision to file complaint within two years. Delay can be condoned if it is properly explained. As discussed above, there was sufficient time with complainant. He was running his own textile business therefore he could file complaint within time limit.
8) The learned advocate for the complainant has submitted that delay should be liberally condoned. For this purpose she has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 259. It was the matter of promotion. The facts are totally different. Therefore, the above cited judgment is not applicable in this complaint. She has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.460/87 dated 12th February, 1987 in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag –Versus- Smt.Katiji & Ors. In view of this judgment, delay should be liberally condoned. In that case there was delay of four days only. In the instant case before us, there is delay of 35 years. Therefore, the above cited judgment is not applicable in this complaint. She has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1996 II C.L.R. 504. As per this judgment, party has to explain delay form the last day of limitation till filing of appeal. In the instant case before us, there is delay of 35 years without explanation therefore it is not applicable. She has further placed reliance on the judgment of our High Court reported in 2012 (2) Mh.L.J. 174. In this judgment, there was delay of six days only. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the opponents has submitted that there is specific provision u/s 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to file complaint within two years. Delay can not be condoned unless it is properly explained. For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 761. In view of this judgment, complaint should be filed within time limit and if there is delay, it should be properly explained.
9) Thus, there is inordinate delay of 35 years which is not properly explained. There is specific provision u/s 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to file complaint within two years. As the delay is not properly explained, delay can not be condoned and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1) Application for delay condondation is hereby dismissed.
2) As the delay is not condoned, the consumer complaint can not be admitted and disposed off accordingly.
3) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced
Dated 8th January, 2014
