IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 18th day of September 2009 OP.199/2004 Valliyadan B eena, D/o.Late P.Omana, ValliyadanHouse, Vietnam Tribal Colony, complainant P.O.Keezhpally (Rep. by Adv.John Joseph) 1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund organization, 8th 9th floor, Mayoor Bhavan, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi 1. 2. The Secretary, Board of Trustees, EPF, State Farms Corporation of India Ltd., 14,15, Farms Bhavan, Nehru Place, Opposite Parties New Delhi19 (Rep. by Adv.Shashi D Nambiar) 3. The Manager, LIC of India Zonal Office, New Delhi 110001 O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to disburse the EDLIS benefit to the complainant amounting to Rs.62, 000/- along with 12% interest from 17.10.97 till realization with compensation and cost. The complainant’s case is that she is the daughter of late P.Omana, who was an employee of Central State Farm, Aralam, and was a member of EPF scheme having EPF account No.DL.3670/00306. She was died on 14.10.07 while she was an employee. So the complainant is entitled to receive the employees deposit linked insurance scheme as the nominee of the deceased. The complainant had submitted an application for disbursement of EDLIS benefits through the employer, immediately after the death of the employee. The complainant has not received the benefits, even after a lapse of 7 years. The complainant believes that the delay is caused due to the negligence of the opposite parties. So the complainant has issued a lawyer notice dt.5.8.04 to 1st opposite party and the employer, demanding to settle the claim. The employer had issued a reply stating that the claim made by the complainant has been sent to 2nd opposite party long back along with necessary particulars. The opposite parties miserably failed to disburse the EDLIS benefits to the complainant within the statutory period of 30 days. Hence this complaint. On receiving the notice from the Forum opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their version. 1st opposite party filed version contending that the EDLIS accounts in respect of employees of State Farms Corporation of India Ltd. has been maintained by 3rd opposite party under group Insurance scheme and have 3rd opposite party to release the benefits to the employee. The 2nd opposite party is an exempted establishment under the subsection 2A of section 17 of EPF & M.P Act of 1952. On receipt of the complaint, the 1st opposite party immediately contacted 2nd opposite party and asked them to redress the grievance of the complainant. Accordingly the 2nd opposite party intimated by letter dt.13.10.04 that the 3rd opposite party has released a sum of Rs.37000/- as per cheque No.529786 dt.12.10.04 to the complainant on account of settlement of EDLIS benefits of deceased P.Omana. So the compliant is liable to be dismissed. 2nd opposite party also filed version contending that 2nd opposite party has already taken up the matter before the appropriate authorities for releasing the payment under the scheme EDLIS and they informed the complainant on 24.9.04 that the matter is pending before LIC and the benefit will be released by LUIC shortly. More over there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and the complainant has nothing to do with 2nd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3rdopposite party also filed version admitting that there is a group insurance arrangement providing for employees Deposit linked insurance with State aralam Farm and a claim under the scheme was settled by the 3rd opposite party earlier. On 9.10.04, a cheque for an amount of Rs.37, 000/- dt.12.10.04 issued to the S.B account of 2160 ie.SB account of the complainant as the claim settlement and the same was enchased on 26.10.04. Since the 3rd opposite party has honored the claim without any delay, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A4and B1 and B2. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 The complaint has been filed by the complainant for disbursing the EDLIS benefit of the complainant i.e. Rs.62, 000/- with 12% interest from 17.10.97 till realization with cost and compensation. But during the pendency of the proceedings the 3rd opposite party has already disbursed Rs.37, 000/- on 12.10.04 by way of cheque as EDLIS benefit. So the remaining question to be decided is whether the complainant is entitled to receive balance amount of Rs.25, 000/- as EDLIS benefit and whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in disbursing the EDLIS benefit of the complainant. As per the employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme 1976, section 2(b) defines the assurance benefit as a payment linked to the average balance in the provident fund account of an employee payable to a person belonging to his family or otherwise entitled to it in the event of death of the employee while being a member of the fund. Section 22 further explains the scales of assurance benefit and the minimum average balance to be maintained by an employee as on the death of an employee who is a member of the fund or of a provident fund exempted under section 17 of the Act, as the case maybe the persons entitled to receive the provident fund accumulations of the deceased shall in addition to such accumulations be paid an amount, equal to the average balance to the account of the deceased in the fund or of a provident fund exempted under section 17 of the Act, as the case may be during preceding 12 months or during the period of his membership whichever is less except where the average balance exceeds rupees thirty five thousand, the amount payable shall be rupees thirty five thousand plus 25% of the amount in excess of rupees Thirty five thousand subject to a ceiling of rupees Sixty thousand. Further the explanation(1) to this explains the average balance in the fund or in the provident fund exempted under section 17 of the Act, as the case may be, in relation to an employee the sum total contribution by the employee and the employer due for and up to the relevant period, whether paid or unpaid in the fund or is the provident fund exempted under section 17 of the Act, together with the interest therein shall be included. So it is very clear that in order to determine whether the complainant is entitled to any balance amount as EDLIS benefit, we have to know either the employee’s salary and other emoluments or the contribution paid by the employer and employee along with other details regarding the period of employment, EPF details etc. But no such details or documents are produced by the complainant. So the complainant failed to prove that he is entitled to get more amounts towards EDLIS. Hence the issue is answered negatively The other question is whether there is any delay caused on the part of opposite parties for disbursing the amount. Complainant alleged that soon after the death of the employee during 1997, the nominee had applied for EDLIS benefit. But the opposite parties are not disputed the averment and have no case that the complainant has not applied for the same during 1997. So it can be inferred that the complainant has applied for the EDLIS benefit during 1997 itself. But it is an admitted fact that the 3rd opposite party has disbursed the EDLIS benefit only on 12.10.04, after 7 years from the application. As per section 24(4) of the EDLIS, 1976, “the claims complete in all respects submitted along within the requisite documents shall be settled and benefit amount paid to the beneficiaries within 30 days from the date of receipt by the Commissioner. If there is any deficiency in the claim, the same shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt of such application. In case the Commissioner fails without sufficient cause to settle a claim, complete in all respect, within 30 days, the Commissioner shall be liable for the delay beyond the said period and penal interest 12% per annum may be charged on the benefit amount. But in this case the commissioner has not either issued any letter to the complainant to the effect that her application is defective or settled the claim within 30 days. The 1st opposite party has produced a notification dt.7.6.99 it is stated that “upon the death of the member covered under the Group Insurance scheme, Life Insurance corporation of India shall ensure prompt payment, to the sum assured to the nominee of the deceased member entitled for it and in any case within one month from the receipt of claims completed in all respect. More over no evidence before us to prove that the 2nd opposite party has acted promptly for disbursing the amount. So we are of the opinion that there is some deficiency on the part of all opposite parties for which all of them are liable to compensate the complainant. No document is produced before us to show the date of application even though the complainant contended that he had applied during 1997. So for the sake of calculation we take the date from 1.1.1998. So the opposite parties are liable to give 12% interest for the amount of Rs.37, 000/- which was already disbursed on 12.10.2004, from 1.1.98 to12.10.04. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.2000/- as compensation and cost of these proceedings. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay 12% interest for the amount of Rs.37, 000/- from 1.1.1998 up to 12.10.2004 with Rs.2, 000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order under the provisions of consumer protection act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Copy of the death certificate of Omana A2.copy of the lawyer notice sent to Ops A3.Postal receipts A4.Reply notice dt.13.8.04 Exhibits for the opposite parties B1.copy of the notification dt.7.6.99 No.2/1959/DLI/EXEMP/89. B2.copy of the letter dt.13.10.04 sent by State Farms Corporation India ltd. to Asst.P.F. Commissioner, New Delhi Witness examined for either side: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
