KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.587/10

JUDGMENT DATED  26.3.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

 SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                             --  MEMBER

The District Executive Officer,

Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare

Fund Board, SRM Road,                                   --  APPELLANT

Ernakulam.                                                                                        

   (By Adv. P.Ramakrishnan)

                   Vs.

P.A.Hamza,

S/0 Abdul Rasarks Molattu Veedu,

Kakkanad.P.O,                                                    --  RESPONDENT

NGO.Quarties,  Palachuvadu.

                                                         JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties//District Welfare Officer, Kerala Motor Workers Welfare Board in CC 157/1 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The appellants are under orders to return the amount remitted by the complainant ie; Rs.5,900/-  with interest at 12% per annum from the date fixed for compliance of th e order till realization. 

  2. The opposite parties/appellant was ex-parte in the proceedings before the Forum.

  3. The case of the complainant is that he is a registered owner-cum-driver of a taxi car and he remitted the amounts towards the Welfare Board on 6.4.06.  His application  for joining of the welfare fund was rejected  as has crossed 60 years.  This application for refund was rejected.  He has sought for return of the amount with    compensation and cost.

  4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts. A1 to A6.  

  5. The case of the counsel for the appellant is that as per the scheme the employer if he self employed as in the instant case has to register as an employee,  as the amounts are meant for employees only.  Evidently, in the instant case, the complainant was the owner-cum-driver and hence he ought to have registered as self employed.  May be he did not do so as he was not aware of the complexity.  There is no reason as to why the appellant was ex-parte before the Forum.

  6. In view of the fact that the Forum has only ordered to return the amount remitted without interest  if the amount is repaid within one month we find that  no interference is called for.

          7. We find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.  Appeal is dismissed in limine.

          Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT

  S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR         -- MEMBER