Karnataka

Mysore

CC/599/2015

Manjunatha M.N. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Principal, JSS Pre-university College, and another - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

06 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSURU
No.1542 F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara,
Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysuru-570023
 
Complaint Case No. CC/599/2015
 
1. Manjunatha M.N.
Manjunatha.M.N., S/o Nagaraja.M.N., Lecturer, DPBS, Govt. Pre-University College, Periyapatna, Mysure District
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Principal, JSS Pre-university College, and another
1. Principal, JSS Pre-University College, Hullahalli, Nanjangudu Taluk, Mysore District.
2. Commission (P.F.)
2. Commissioner (P.F.), Regional Office, No.109-128, P.F. Bhavan, Gayathripuram, Mysuru-571119.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. H M Shivakumara Swamy PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. M V Bharathi MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Devakumar M.C MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 06 Jan 2017
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.599/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 6th January 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

 

COMPLAINANT/S

 

:

Manjunatha.M.N., S/o Nagaraja.M.N., Lecturer, DPBS, Government Pre University College, Periyapatna, Mysuru District.

 

(INPERSON)

 

 

 

 

 

V/S

OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

:

  1. Principal, J.S.S. Pre-University College, Hullahally, Nanjangudu Taluk, Mysuru District.
  2. Commissioner (Provident Fund), Regional Office, No.109-128 Provident Fund Bhavana, Gayathripuram, Mysuru-571119.

 

(OP No.1 Sri R.Ravi, Adv., and OP No.2 Sri A.V.Jayarama Rao, Advar.)

     

 

Nature of complaint

:

Deficiency in service

Date of filing of complaint

:

05.09.2015

Date of Issue notice

:

14.09.2015

Date of order

:

06.01.2017

Duration of Proceeding

:

1 YEAR 4 MONTHS

 

 

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

 

  1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the balance amount remitted by the complainant towards his PF account with costs and such other reliefs.
  2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant was working as Lecturer in opposite party No.1-College and he has resigned from the said job on 29.08.2009.  He had P.F. account bearing No.22203/5, he has made attempt withdraw the said amount from EPF office opposite party No.2.  But, the opposite party No.2 did not pay the amount immediately stating that opposite party No.1 college has not submitted Form No.3A, Form No.10C and Form No.9 for settlement of the claim.  Subsequently, on 06.09.2013, a sum of Rs.30,746/- was remitted to the S.B. account of the complainant, there remains balance, that has not been paid, hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not settling the claim and the he was made to attend both P.F. office as well as college on several occasions.  Thereby, he has sought for compensation also.
  3.     Both opposite parties appeared through their respective advocates and submitted their version.  Version of opposite party No.1 runs as follows:- It is in not dispute that the complainant was working in the institution and he has left employment form 29.08.2009.  Due to change of post of Principal, there is some problem.  Thereby, opposite party No.2 has rejected the claim.  Subsequently, a letter was communicated on 25.05.2013 to opposite party No.2, then the claim has been settled.  There is no dereliction of duty or negligence on the part of opposite party No.1.  Thereby, opposite party No.1 sought for dismissal of the complaint.
  4.     Whereas the version of opposite party No.2 runs as follows:- The P.F. claim can be settled only when the provisions are complied by the employer.  In this case, Manjunth had Code No.KL/22203/5 not submitted the complete statement.  J.S.S. PU College i.e. opposite party No.1 is responsible for furnishingto give the details relating to P.F. and contribution and account of the employee.  In this case, college has not submitted the details.  Thereby, there is delay in settlement of claim, for which opposite party No.2 P.F. office is not answerable.  If there is any delay in settling the claim, it is the duty on the part of employer and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2  As such, opposite party No.2 has sought for dismissal of this complaint.    
  5.     On the above contentions, this matter is posted for evidence.  During evidence, on behalf of complainant, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence.  One Anthamurthy, Principal of opposite party No.1 has filed affidavit evidence. Likewise, on behalf of opposite party No.2 one V.Jagan Mohan Rao has submitted his affidavit evidence and further evidence closed.  After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.   
  6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-
  1. Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not settling his P.F. claim well within the period, thereby, he is entitled for relief claimed in this complaint?
  2.  What order?

 

  1.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

 

:: R E A S O N S ::

 

  1. Point No.1:- During evidence, P.W.1 i.e. complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  It is his evidence that he was working with opposite party No.1 from 02.02.2007 to 28.08.2009 and he has voluntarily left the service on 29.08.2009. Under P.F. account No.22203/5, opposite party No.1 has deducted contribution towards P.F. account from his salary. After leaving the job, complainant has requested both opposite parties for settlement of P.F. claim, which has not been done immediately by both opposite parties.  Thereby, the complainant submits that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not settling the claim and on the other hand, part payment was made on 06.09.2013 by crediting the amount of Rs.30,746/-.  Whereas in the account of complainant, a sum of Rs.33,193/- was remitted.  Thereby, there is difference in payment of the amount, the opposite parties have made him to spend huge amount for approaching both offices.  As such, complainant sought for an order against opposite parties. 
  2.    Whereas it is the contention of opposite party No.1 that there is change in the principal post, thereby, there was some confusion.  As such, the amount was not remitted properly to the P.F. amount of the complainant had has been later settled by remitting the same and providing necessary information as per the Form No.3A, 6A and 11A of P.F.Act.  Thereby, opposite party No.1 sought for dismissal of the complaint.
  3. Whereas opposite party No.2 submits that opposite party No.1 employer has not properly given particulars.  Thereby, there is delay in settlement of claim, only after providing necessary particulars, the P.F. office has settled amount.
  4. The complainant has placed the documents i.e. Form No.21A, and other related forms in this case.  In fact, P.F. office issued show-cause notices to opposite party No.1 for submission of all the necessary forms on two occasions.  Even thereafter, only the necessary information was given by opposite party No.1 college.  In the circumstances, there is delay on the part of opposite party No.1 college in furnishing the necessary particulars to the P.F. office for settlement of claim.  Thereby, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 college and there is nothing to show that opposite party No.2 has committed any deficiency in service since opposite party No.1 has delayed submissions of necessary particulars for settlement of claim.  Thereby, opposite party No.2 is not liable to answer the claim in question.  On the other hand, opposite party No.1 alone is answer the claim.  In view of part payment, they remains balance of Rs.2,447/- to be paid to the complainant by opposite party No.1 towards P.F. amount, in addition to opposite party No.1 has to pay compensation and litigation expenses.   Hence, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
  5. Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, The opposite party No.1 is liable to pay Rs.2,447/- being the balance P.F. amount with interest at 18% p.a. on the said sum from the date of complaint till payment.  Further, opposite party No.1 is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

  1. The complaint is allowed in part.
  2. The opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,447/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment.
  3. Opposite party No.1 shall pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- in 60 days from the date of this order, failing which the said sum of Rs.7,000/- shall carry interest at 12% p.a. form the date of complaint.
  4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party No.1 shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
  5. Complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
  6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 6th January 2017)

 

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

 

 

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. H M Shivakumara Swamy]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MS. M V Bharathi]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Devakumar M.C]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.