Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/74/2023

SATWINDER KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - Opp.Party(s)

BRIJINDRA SINGH BAJWA

23 Oct 2024

ORDER

  STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench)

 

Appeal No.	:	74 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	18.04.2023
Date of Decision	:	23.10.2024

 

Satwinder Kaur (100% disabled) w/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar, HouseNo.1016, Ward No.9 VPO Bhapat, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) through her son Gurwinder Singh.

                                                                 ... Appellant/Complainant

                                                 Versus

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, SCO No. 4-7, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh U.T. through Regional Officer(Claims).
2. The Assistant PF Commissioner (Accounts) Chandigarh.
3. Krishna Auto Sales, 177-E, Industrial Area-I, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
4. Life Insurance Co. of India Jeevan Parkash Building Sector-17, Chandigarh through its Managing (Claims).

                                                                …Respondents/Opposite Parties

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:       Sh. Ramesh Kumar Dhiman, counsel for the Appellant.

                         Sh.Salil Sablok, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 & 2.

                         Sh. Jagvir Sharma, Counsel  Respondents No. 3.

                         Sh. Piyush Sharma, Adv. For  Respondents No.4, (on VC).

 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                  This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.12.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.591 of 2019 in the following terms;

“10.     In view of the above discussion the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed against Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party No. 3 is directed as under:-

1. to pay Rs.30000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her.
2. To pay Rs.7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.     This order be complied with by the Opposite Party No.     3 within thirty days from the date of receipt at its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the           amounts mentioned at Sr. No, (i) above, with interest @   12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization,          apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(ii) above”.

2.           For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.
3. Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complaint that her son was employee of Opposite Party no. 3 for the period from 16.09.2014 to 03.11.2017 and during that period PF was   being deducted from his salary. The Opposite Party No.3 also started contributing in EDLI scheme of employees of Provident Fund organization for all the eligible employee and the same was also deducted from the salary of complainant’s son. Prior to September 2017 the Opposite Party No. 3 had taken policy in lieu of EDLI Contributions and w.e.f. September 2017 Opposite Party No. 2 started contributing the EDLI Scheme of employee provident fund organization for all the eligible employees. Unfortunately, the son of the complainant expired on 3.11.2017. It was alleged that the Opposite Party No.3 paid the amount of PF after September 2017 but no amount had been paid to the complainant prior to September 2017 without any rhyme and reason. It was further averred that the as per information received under RTI the son of the complainant joined the PF on 16.09.2014 and amount of EPF was being deducted from his salary since 16.09.2014 but now after death of son of complainant the said amount was not paid to the complainant. The complainant requested the OPs, for balance of payment of EDLI scheme but nothing was done. Ultimately the complainant got served legal notice upon the OPs which was replied by them. The Opposite Party No. 4 replied that the son of the complainant died after the cancellation of policy by Opposite Party No. 3, thus since the policy was in lapsed condition therefore, nothing was payable by the insurance company. Whereas, the Opposite Party No. 1 in its reply to the legal notice stated that after death of son of the complainant a sum of Rs. 55,147/- was paid to the complainant and an amount of Rs. 90,049/- was also been paid to the complainant, through cheque. It was stated that the Opposite Party No. 3 was duty bound to deduct premium from the salary the son of the complainant and remit the same to the LIC but the Opposite Party No. 3 got the policy cancelled without consent of the son of the complainant. Hence the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
4. In the reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, the OPs No.1 & 2 pleaded in their written statement that the Opposite Party No.3 had taken the policy of Life Insurance Corporation prior to September 2017 and reported compliance under Employee’s Deposit Link Insurance, 1976, w.e.f. September 2017. A copy of report of Area Enforcement Officer dated 01.06.2018 was also provided. It was stated that the contribution was to be made by the employer under Employee’s Deposit Link Insurance Scheme, 1976. The provident fund accumulation amounting to Rs. 55,147/- has already been remitted to the mother of the deceased being the beneficiary of the deceased from his entire membership under Employer’s Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, i.e. for the period 16.09.2014 to 03.11.2017 and thus nothing remained payable on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2. Denying all other allegation and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs No.1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. OP No. 3 filed their separate reply, inter alia, pleading that it was clear from the documents attached by the complainant (Annexures C-5 and C-6) that the OP No. 3 under its obligations, being employer of Shri Lakhwinder Singh, started depositing PF in EDLI Scheme to the Employees Provident Fund Organization after discontinuing its EDLI Policy from LIC. The disputes if any is between the complainant and OPs No.1 & 2 and the answering OP No.3 has no role to play as the claim was to be paid by OPs No.1&2. Denying all other allegation and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.3 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. In its reply OP No.4 stated that the OP No.3 had taken Group Insurance Policy form the OP No.4 which was lying lapsed as the renewal premium due on 01.09.2017 was not paid and subsequently vide letter dated 14.11.2017 the OP No.3 discontinued the policy. Thus, since the policy was in lapsed mode therefore, the OP No.4 was not liable to pay. Denying all other allegation and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission allowed the Consumer Complaint of the complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.
8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ Complainant for modification of the order & enhancement of the claim amount.
9. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care.
10. The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it.
11.   After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
12.   On a thorough examination of the documents it is very clear that the Learned District Commission has held Opposite Party No.3 negligent. The documents clearly shows that the Opposite Party No.3/respondent No.3 i.e. Krishna Auto Sales, Chandigarh has intimated the LIC that is Opposite Party No.4, for discontinuation of the policy on 12.11.2017 i.e. immediately after the death of the son of the complainant and further intimated the same to the Assistant PF Commissioner (Accounts), Chandigarh on 28.05.2018. It was further observed by the Learned District Commission that it was the bounden duty of the employer i.e. Opposite Party No.3 to get the legitimate claim of the complainant approved from the LIC but instead it got the policy discontinued without any prior intimation to the son of the complainant. Accordingly, the Lower forum had partly allowed the complaint of the appellant and whereby directing the Opposite Party No.3 which has been mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. The prayer in the appeal made by the appellant is for enhancement of the relief granted by the Learned District Commission as well as directions for payment of the PF amount on 16.09.2014 to September 2017. During the course of the adjudication of the appeal the Regional PF Commissioner-II(Legal) EPFO, Regional Office, Chandigarh had filed an affidavit to the effect that no amount is due to be paid to the appellant. In the affidavit it is clearly mentioned that the complainant/appellant was disbursed an amount of Rs.90,049/- towards EDLI on 01.06.2018 and an amount of Rs.55,147/- towards the EPF on 21.02.2018 then later on, on scrutiny of the accounts there was balance amount towards EDLI and accordingly re-calculation was done and balance payment of Rs.1,95,370/- was made vide Cheque No.487089 dated 19.03.2024 in addition to the amount mentioned as above. Further it has been mentioned that no further dues are pending to the complainant/appellant with respondent No.1 & 2.
13.  Keeping in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission, partly allowing the consumer Complaint ordering refund of the amount along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses, is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, and do not need interference of this Commission.  Resultantly, the appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. District Commission is upheld.
14. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.
15. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, forthwith.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the District Commission be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

23^th Oct. 2024 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/- [PREETINDER SINGH]

MEMBER

‘Tanvi’