Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/71/2019

Mukesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

RPF Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Thakur

24 Nov 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                        Consumer Complaint No.71 of 2019.

                                        Date of instt.:25.02.2019. 

                                        Date of Decision:24.11.2021.

 

Mukesh Kumar s/o Shri Om Parkash, r/o village Ishaqpur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …….Complainant.                                                  Versus

       

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees, Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office SCO 4-7, Sector-17D, Chandigarh.
2. M/s Secodiya Security Services, H.No.9, Block 2006, Sector-32C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Manager. (Already given up).

 

        ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt.    Mrs.Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri Shekhar Thakur, Advocate for the complainant.        

Shri Balwinder Bhasin, Advocate for the opposite party     No.1.

Opposite Party No.2 given up.              

 

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Mukesh Kumar against The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and other, the opposite parties.

 

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant appointed as Process Server in the Court of Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Kurukshetra on 20.09.2013 through outsourcing agency i.e. The OP No.2. That since from inception of the aforesaid duty, the regular contributions in respect of employee share was deducted out of his salary received and the Principal Employer also gave Employer Contribution in respect of EPF and allied EPS scheme for the complainant, to the OP No.2 for onward deposit with the OP No.1. That during the period of service, neither Principal Employer nor the contractor firm i.e. OP No.2 disclosed about EPF account number relating with the complainant and he worked with the said Court till 03.08.2015. That afterwards, he has made many efforts for getting knowledge of his EPF account from both the OPs, but none of them disclosed the same. In this regard, he has filed a complaint before the SP Kurukshetra, SHO, PS Sector-7, Kurukshetra and then filed a complaint before the Chief Minister, Haryana under CM Window and before the DGP, Haryana in this regard. However, during the proceedings under such complaints, he got knowledge that the OP No.1 has already recovered Rs.243984/- on 28.08.2017 from the aforesaid contractor firm. That on 10.08.2018, he filed a RTI application before the OP No.1 office regarding his EPF dues and in response to that, and  the OP No.1 office intimated vide letter dated 12.11.2018 that area enforcement office has already been assigned a task of allotting EPF account number to the complainant and he waited for more than 2 months for getting the needful done. He issued a legal notice dated 18.01.2019 from his Advocate to the OP No.1 in this regard and his counsel received a letter dated 25.01.2019 from the OP No.1 office bearing Reference No.File No.Wing-A(Comp.)/PB/CHD/21669/326 with averments that the OP No.1 has delivered Show Cause Notice to the OP No.2 on 31.12.2018 and the OP No.2 failed to comply with that notice, a prosecution proposal has been received from AEO, which is being processed to be filed in the Hon’ble Court. That the position remained same even after reply from the OP No.1, as he has not been provided with his detail regarding EPF account number. In this way, the OPs are deficient while rendering services to her. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus-standi; jurisdiction and complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary party. It is stated that the present complaint is time barred as in the complaint the complainant alleged that he worked with the Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Kurukshetra till 03.08.2015 through OP No.2, whereas, he filed the present complaint on 22.02.2019 i.e. after more than 3 years which is time barred. That as per Section 7(a) of the Employee Provident Fund Act, the jurisdiction to decide the case is at Chandigarh before Provident Funds Commissioner. The OP No.1 had paid the entire EPF and nothing is due against the OP No.1. The matter was pending in process in the office due to which the EPF could not be deposited earlier. Moreover, the complainant has not assisted the OP No.1 by supplying the documents and he caused the delay intentionally and knowingly. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same with special costs.

                It is pertinent to mention here that on 03.07.2019, the complainant has given up the OP No.2 qua the present complaint vide his recorded separate statement.

 

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.OW1/A alongwith documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O4.

 

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that despite repeated  requests the OP No.1 failed to prove the details of EPF account to the complainant and harassed the complainant. However, it is also argued that payment of the EPF amount has  only been made by the OP no.1 during the pendency of the present complaint and the cause of action is still continue  and as such the complainant is entitled for the mental harassment  caused to him and the litigation expenses.

 

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1has argued that the present complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties. It is also argued that the present complaint is barred by limitation and this Commission has got no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint u/s 7 A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is also argued that all the dues has been paid to the complainant and there is no cause of action  in this case. Thus, it is argued that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed as there is no cause of action to file the present complaint.

 

8.             After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there was gross deficiency in services on the part of the because the Ops have harassed the complainant for not supplying the details of his EPF account.   So far as argument of the learned counsel for the OP is concerned, the complainant has worked at Kurukshetra and the deduction from his salary was made at Kurukshetra, therefore, this Commission has jurisdiction to file the present case. The cause of action is still continue as the payment of EPF has  only been made after filing of the present complaint, therefore, deficiency in services on the part of the OP is made out. The argument of learned counsel for the OP that u/s 7-A of  the employees  Provided Fund and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint is also devoid of any merit because a complaint can be  filed u/s 3-A of the Consumer Protection Act. 3 wherein it is stated that the   Act not in derogation of any other law.The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, this commission has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. So far as point raised by the OP regarding limitation is concerned, the argument is also devoid of any force because the complainant is fighting for redressal of his grievance and the amount of EPF has only been paid after filing of the present complaint and the cause of action is still continue. The argument of the learned counsel for the OP that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission is also not acceptable because the Hon’ble Apex Court  in RPFC Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi 2000 (1) CPC 250 has held that the duties performed by Regional Provident  Fund Commissioner under EPF Scheme is valid for consideration. Even family members of employee’s family are entitled  to such relief, as they are beneficiaries, as defined under the Act having a status of consumer. Even a statutory body is not sovereign authority in discharge of its functions. Where service  is rendered for consideration in its statutory functions, it can be held liable if deficiency in service for consideration is proved. In this view the matter as  authoritatively held by the Apex Court, the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and contention of appellants is repelled.   Therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation for deficiency in services in this case.

 

9.             In view of our above findings and observations,  we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 to make the payment of compensation of Rs.10000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP No.1 shall be liable to pay  interest on the said amount of Rs.10,000/- @ 6% per annum  from the date of this order i.e. 24.11.2021 till its actual realization. The OP No.1 shall also pay a sum of  Rs.5000/- for the litigation expenses.  The OP No.1 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed.  Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the Open Commission

Dated: 24.11.2021.     

                                                                               President.

 

                                      Member         Member.