Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/97

Om Parkash Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Municipal Council - Opp.Party(s)

Jatinder Bansal

09 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                               C.C. No. :                       97 of 2019

Date of Institution:            9.04.2019

Date of Decision :             9.10.2019

 

Om Parkash Bansal aged about 60 years (Retd. Inspector, Municipal Council Sri Muktsar Sahib) son of Madan Lal Khajanchi son of Jamit Rai, r/o Bansal Street, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

 

1. Municipal Council Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its Executive Officer.
2. Municipal Council, Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib through its Executive Officer.
3. Department of Local Bodies, Government of Punjab through its Principal Secretary having its office at Plot No.3, Sector 35-A, Dakshin Marg, Chandigarh.        

                                                     ....Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

cc no. 97 of 2019

 

Present:        Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                    Sh Mohan Lal Sharma, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                    Sh Parminder Kumar, Clerk on behalf of OP-2,

                    Sh Amrit Lal, Jr Assistant on behalf of OP-3.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops for deficiency in service and for seeking directions to them to pay Rs.75,900/-deducted from his salary on account of provident fund with interest and for further directing them to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment  suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he joined in the office of OP-1 on 24.12.1980 and in October, 2016 he was transferred to the office of OP-2 and he retired therefrom on 31.07.2017 on attaining superannuation. It is submitted that after retirement, OPs made payment of provident fund to complainant deducted from his salary upto June, 2013 and thereafter deducted by OP-2 from November, 2016 onwards till July, 2017, but they did not make payment of amount of Rs.75,900/-deducted by OP-1 from the salary of complainant for the period from July, 2013 to October 2016. OP-2 asked OP-1 to  make payment of entire amount of provident fund deducted from

cc no. 97 of 2019

the salary of complainant but vide letter dated 17.05.2018, OP-1 informed OP-2 that due to financial crisis, amount on account of provident fund of all employees was not got deposited by them for the period from July, 2013 and Rs.75,900/-are still due to be paid to complainant on account of remaining unpaid amount of provident fund. Complainant approached OPs many times and made several requests to them release the remaining amount of provident fund to him. He also submitted letter dated 26.02.2019 to OP-2 requesting them to make payment of provident fund amount, but that also bore no fruit and OPs did not do anything needful. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 22.04.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                    Opposite Party - 1 filed written statement wherein took preliminary objection that complainant  is  not                their  consumer.  However, on  merits, OP-1 have  denied                        all    the   allegations   of   complainant   being  wrong   and   incorrect   but admitted before the Forum that complainant joined their office on 24.12.1980 and while working in their office, he was transferred

cc no. 97 of 2019

to Sri Muktsar Sahib in October, 2016 and retired from the office of OP-2. It is also admitted that some amount on account of provident fund was being deducted from his salary every month. Further admitted that Provident Fund amount worth Rs.75,900/-is due and payable by them to complainant but due to some financial crisis, this amount could not be paid to him. It is averred that supervisory power vests in OP-3, but payment of amount is to be paid by concerned municipal council. It is further averred that answering OP would make payment of provident fund to complainant in instalments and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5                                     OP-2 also filed reply wherein admitted that complainant was transferred to their office in October, 2016 and he retired from his service from there. It is also admitted that provident fund of complainant was deducted from his salary every month by OP-1, but it is denied that provident fund was sent to Provident Fund Commissioner. It is averred that amount of Rs.75,900/-on account of provident fund deduction is due and payable to complainant by Op-1 and OP-1 is bound to pay the same. Payment in respect of gratuity and leave encashment has already been made to him by answering OP and nothing is due to be paid by them to him. all the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                           OP-3 also filed written statement wherein submitted that complainant has sought relief from OP-1 and OP-2 and

cc no. 97 of 2019

they have no role to play in it and answering OP is only proforma party and amount of provident fund is to be paid by other OPs and moreover, complainant never approached them regarding his complaint in this matter. It is averred that no notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon them which was mandatory. There is no deficiency in service on their part and complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed.

7                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-5 and documents Ex C-1 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                                Ld Counsel for OPs did not tender any documentary evidence and closed the same on behalf of OPs.

9                                        From the careful perusal of the record and going through evidence and documents placed on record, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he was employed under OPs and during his service period, OPs used to deduct some amount from his salary on account of provident fund and on his retirement, OPs paid him all benefits alongwith payment of provident fund, but amount of Rs.75,900/-is still due towards them on account of provident fund, which was deducted by OP-1 from the salary of complainant for the period from July, 2013 to October 2016, but OP-1 did not release the same despite repeated requests. OP-1 did not release this amount on the ground that due

cc no. 97 of 2019

to financial crisis, they could not pay the same. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs have not made him payment of remaining amount of Rs.75,990/-due towards them, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the other hand in reply, all OPs admitted that he was employed under them and amount of Rs.75,900/-on account of provident fund which was deducted by OP-1 from the salary of complainant for the period from July, 2013 to October 2016 is due to be paid to him. OP-1 stressed mainly on the point that due to financial crises, they could not make the payment of remaining provident fund amount to him and offered to pay the same in instalments.

10                                       It is admitted case of the parties that complainant was employed under them. OP-1 duly admitted before the Forum through written statement that his provident was being deducted from his salary every month, which was not deposited by OP-1 with Provident Fund Commissioner. It is also admitted by OP-1 that amount of Rs.75,900/-on account of provident fund deducted from the salary of complainant, is still due towards them that they failed to pay due to financial crisis, which they are ready to pay in instalments. During the pendency of the case, at the stage of evidence, ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered cheque bearing no.064676 dated 24.09.2019 worth Rs.75,900/- before the Forum, which was duly accepted by ld counsel for complainant vide separate statement got recorded to this effect on 25.09.2019 reserving

cc no. 97 of 2019

their right for interest and cost of litigation. There is no doubt that OP-1  deducted amount from the salary of complainant on account of provident fund for the period from July, 2013 to October 2016 and did not deposit the same with Provident Fund Commissioner and also did not release the same to complainant due to financial crisis, meaning thereby OP-1 illegally retained the huge amount of complainant for a long period depriving him of the value of interest on principal amount, to which he was entitled. At this stage, OP-1 have paid cheque for Rs.75,900/- on 25.09.2019, but complainant is entitled to receive interest on this amount which was retained by OP-1 without any reason and complainant has to undergo harassment and mental agony to obtain his legal right. He was forced to indulge in litigation to get justice.

11                                                  From the above discussion, it is made out that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 with direction to OP-1 to pay interest at the rate of 9% per anum to complainant on amount of Rs.75,900/- from the date of deduction till 25.09.2019 when OP-1 refunded this amount to complainant. OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to complainant for harassment, mental agony and inconvenience suffered by him due to non payment of Provident Fund amount by OP-1 besides Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation incurred by him on present complaint. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be

cc no. 97 of 2019

entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint in hand stands hereby dismissed against OP-2 and OP-3 as they have no role in causing any grievance to complainant. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 9.10.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)  

 Member                               President