Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/168/2010

Anuradha W/o Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Shakti Goel

18 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 168   of 2010.

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 02.03.2010

                                                                                    Date of Decision: 18.04.2016.

Mrs. Anuradha Widow of late Shri Om Parkash resident of village & P.O. Aurangabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

                                                                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office, SCO 5-8, Sector-12, Karnal.
2. Employees Provident Fund Enforcement Officer Kamani Chowk, Yamuna Nagar Tehsil Jagadhri.
3. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (Pension & Group Insurance Unit), P.O. Box No. 131, Jeevan Parkash, 489 Model town, Karnal (Haryana).
4. M/s Sunrise Paper & Straw Board Mills, VPO Aurangabad, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Ajay Shakti Goel, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. R.S.Anand, Advocate, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. 

              Sh. S.C.Garg, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3.

              Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.4.   

 

ORDER

1.                     Complainant Anuradha has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.    

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is widow of Sh. Om Parkash who died on 05.06.2004 due to acute Lymphocyte Leukemia, (Death Certificate Annexure A). It has been further stated that her husband was covered under Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme 1976 being a member and was entitled/ eligible to get benefits under the provisions of this Act as well as Scheme. After the death of her husband the complainant/claimant submitted various claims under the Act with the respondent No. 1(hereinafter referred as OP No.1) and also lodged the claim under the Employees Deposit Linked Insurance vide letter dated 21.8.2006 (Annexure B) and subsequently reminders dated 19.9.2006 (Annexure C), dated 13.12.2006(Annexure D) and lastly through registered letter dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure E) for settlement of the claim in respect of her deceased husband. OPs No.1 and 2 settled the family pension claim of the complainant and her children vide letter No. PGHS/0604077 dated 18.5.2006/2783 dated 09.06.2006 and the complainant and her children started getting the pension under the Act from the OP No.1 which is continuing till today, which is evident from Annexure G. The OPs No.1 & 2 had also settled the Provident Fund Claim with regard to deceased Om Parkash her husband.

3.                     The OPs No.1 & 2 were also under statutory obligation to settle Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Claim of the complainant for which the complainant has already submitted the requisite forms to them for settlement of Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Claims under the Scheme but the Ops No.1 & 2 kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant visited the office of OPs No.1 & 2 in the month of January, February and March 2009 but no heed has been paid to the genuine and lawful request of the complainant. However, complainant received a letter No. PGHS/NL/262 from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, II Employees Provident Fund Organization Sub Regional Office SCO 5-8, Sector-12 Karnal wherein it has been specified as below:

                        “Please refer to head office letter No. PGHS/06067714/III/9205 dated 17.10.2006 on the subject cited above. In this regard, it is stated that establishment is an exempted establishment from EDLI Scheme to EDLI Benefits cannot be given by this office. It is for your information and necessary action please.” (Copy of which is Annexure H.

4.                     After receipt of the letter, the claimant/ complainant took up the matter with the OP No.3 i.e. LIC of India Karnal vide registered letter dated 29.9.2008 (Annexure I) with regard to claiming her Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Benefits under the Scheme, as per direction of Op No.1. The LIC i.e. OP no. 3 vides their letter no. EDLI-6772 dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure J) informed that EDLI claim of the complainant cannot be settled as EDLI Policy with OP No.2 is elapsed since 01.03.2001 and the death of the ceased occurred on 05.06.2004, therefore, they are unable to give the EDLI claim to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant wrote another letter dated 13.01.2009 (Annexure F) to Op No.1 for settlement of Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Claim but Op No.1 neither replied the letter nor settled the EDLI claim. As per provision of Section 22 Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme it provides that on the death of an employee who is a member of the fund, the person entitled to receive the Provident Fund Accumulation and in addition to such accumulation, entitled for EDLI Benefits. So, the complainant is entitled to receive death benefits, EDLI Scheme as provided under the scheme. Finding no effective means to avail the statutory rights, the complainant has served a registered Legal Notice dated 10.09.2009 (Annexure K) but all in vain. As such, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs and Ops be directed to release the EDLI claim of her deceased husband with interest from the date of his death till realization and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11000/- as legal expenses. Hence, this complaint.

5.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OPs No.1 & 2 filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections that the complainant had submitted claim forms in the year 2006 and all the claims were settled by this office except claim for Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme as the claimant/complainant was not entitled for the same as the establishment M/s Sunrise Paper and Board, District Yamuna Nagar (HR/3734)where the deceased Om Parkash was working, was an exempted establishment from EDLI Scheme, so, EDLI benefits cannot be given to the complainant. In view of this, complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the OPs No.1 & 2 So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua them and on merit rest contents of the complaint have been specifically denied and reiterated the averments mentioned in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint against the OPs no.1 & 2.

6.                     OP No.3 LIC filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not given any insurance policy number and in the absence of policy number of the deceased, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and on merit it has been stated that complainant has not given the details of insurance policy as well as other details regarding the insurance number of late Sh. Om Parkash. However, complainant has herself admitted that EDLI policy of the deceased Sh. Om Parkash was already lapse since 1.3.2001 prior to the death of her husband Om Parkash i.e. on 5.6.2004. Nobody either deceased late Om Parkash or the Employer M/s Sunrise Papers & Board Mills Aurangabad District Yamuna Nagar (OP No.4) or OPs No.1 & 2 have deposited the premium of the policy related to late Sh. Om Parkash deceased, therefore, in this situation of lapsed policy since 01.03.2001, OP No.3 is not liable to pay any claim of EDLI Claim as claimed in this complaint by the complainant and the complainant was duly intimated vide letter dated07.11.2008 (Annexure J). Lastly prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the complaint qua OP No.3 is liable to be dismissed

 7.                    OP No.4 M/s Sunrise Papers & Board Mills filed its written statement by way of letter dated 14.11.2014 mentioning therein that “ we want to convey that late Sh. Om Parkash had worked in our factory for 22 days  approximately during the June-July 2003 after that he left his job and after approximately one year he died. So, we were not liable to deposit his PF and EDLI after he left his job”.

8.                     Complainant as well as OPs No.1, 2 and 4 were failed to file any evidence and their evidence was closed by court order on dated 24.2.2015. However, counsel for the Op No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Balbir Singh, Manager as Annexure R3/X and documents such as Annexure R-3/1 and R-3/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3. Further the OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into additional evidence two documents Annexure R-3 and R-4 letter dated 7.8.1992 and 12.4.2010.

9.                     Written arguments filed by the counsel for the complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

10.                   It is admitted case that deceased Om Parkash died on 5.6.2004 which is evident from death certificate (Annexure-A). It is also admitted that the complainant submitted claim forms in the year 2006 and all the claims were settled by the OPs No.1 & 2 except claim for Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme (EDLI Scheme) as the complainant was not entitled for the same because the establishment M/s Sunrise Paper and Board, District Yamuna Nagar was exempted establishment from the EDLI Scheme which is evident from letter dated 7.8.1992 Annexure R-3 and R-4. It is admitted case of the complainant herself as mentioned in para No.13 of the complaint that OP No.3 had informed to the complainant vide their letter No. EDLI 6772 dated 7.11.2008 (Annexure-J) that EDLI claim of the complainant cannot be settled as EDLI policy with Op No.2 is lapsed since 1.3.2001 and the death of the deceased occurred on 5.6.2004. As per the version of the OP No.4 deceased Om Parkash worked in the factory only for 22 days approximately during June-July 2003 and after that he left his job. So, OP No.4 was not liable to deposit his PF and EDLI after left his job.

11                        Counsel for the complainant has totally failed to convince this Forum that in what manner the OPs are deficient in service as the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence to controvert the version as well as stand taken by the OPs. Even no evidence has been filed on behalf of the complainant that deceased Om Parkash worked in the M/s Sunrise Paper and Straw Mills i.e. Op No.4 for more than 22 days as per version of OP No.4. When the M/s Sunrise Papers and Straw Mills i.e. OP No.4 was not covered under the EDLI scheme due to exemption under section 28 (7) of the EDLI Insurance Scheme 1976, then how the claimants can claim the benefits under that scheme So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2. Furthermore as per version of the complainant herself, the alleged insurance policy was in lapsed mode since 01.03.2001, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 also. Learned counsel for the OP No.3 also referred the case law titled as LIC Versus Mangai & Another, 1 (2010) CPJ page 114 (NC) and Revision Petition No. 3438 of 2012 titled as LIC of India Versus Neelamma (NC) wherein it has been held that there is no deficiency in service in repudiating the claim and the learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing the appeal and learned District Forum committed error in allowing the complaint as the policy in question was in lapsed mode. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed.

12                    In the circumstances noted above, as the complainant has miserably failed to prove that that deceased Om Parkash worked in the factory of  M/s Sunrise Paper and Straw Mills i.e. Op No.4 for more than 22 days and further the M/s Sunrise Papers and Straw Mills i.e. OP No.4 was covered under the EDLI scheme i.e. not exempted under section 28 (7) of the EDLI Insurance Scheme 1976, and further more the alleged insurance policy was not in lapse mode, then how the claimants can claim the benefits under that scheme So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Furthermore, the deceased Om Parkash died on 5.6.2004 and she submitted the papers in the year 2006 but the present complaint has been filed on 2.3.2010 i.e. after a lapse of period of 4 years and after a gap of 6 years from the date of death. So we are also of the view that the complainant of the complaint is also time bared.

13.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 18.04.2016.

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER