BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.273/2018

DATED ON THIS THE  6^th June 2019

Present:        1) Sri. C.V Maragoor

B.COM., L.L.M., - PRESIDENT  

                          2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.           

                                                                       B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Complainant/s                  :               Manimutthu.D M.A.M PED.,                                                     

                                                            (Retd.Teacher), aged about 62 years,

No.L-37, 6^th Cross, Gangothri

Quarters, Manasa Gangothri

 Mysuru-6

                                                           (Inperson)

                                                V/S

                  Opposite party/s               :      Secretary,

                                                                     Manasa Gangothri Education Institute,

                                                                    Manasa Gangothri, Mysuru-06

                                                                     (Inperson)

Sri. M.C. Devakumar,

Member

The complainant filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party institution  alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay the provident fund amount and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2.  The complainant had joined the opposite party institution, as  a temporary physical education teacher during the year 1987. Later on 17.01.1994 the opposite party institution become an aided institution. The opposite party institution has not paid the contribution amount towards PF account in respect of the complainant. The complainant has retired from the services on 31.07.2016. Due to non-payment of contribution towards PF amount the complainant could not get the PF amount. Hence, the complainant alleged the deficiency in service and filed this complaint seeking reliefs.

3. The opposite party filed version with certain documents and denies the allegations as false.

4. The complainant has lead his evidence by filing affidavit with several documents. The opposite party not lead the evidence. Written arguments was filed by the complainant and later submitted the oral arguments. Perused the material on record and posted the matter for orders.

5. The points arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service by the opposite party and thereby he is entitled for the relief sought?

3.What order?

6. Our findings on the aforesaid point is as follows:

                    Point no.1: In the negative

                   Point no.2: Does not arise for consideration

                    Point no.3: As per final order for the following

Reasons

          7. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The complainant alleged that the opposite party  was failed to contribute its share towards his PF account for the period from 1987 to 1994. as such, he is not getting the PF facilities even after his retirement from the services on 31.07.2016. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party institution has falsely contended that they have remitted their share with complainant’s share amount to the PF account. However, due to non-payment of the contribution amount the opposite party asked the complainant through letters dated 29.03.2003, 24.07.2003 and 03.07.2006 to refund a sum of Rs. 4053/-.

8. The complainant had opportunity to seek reliefs from the opposite party, but was remained silent until his retirement in the year 2016. Later on he has come up with this complaint seeking reliefs. Under section 24 –A of the CP Act, 1986 a consumer is required to file a complaint for his grievances against the opposite parties within a period of two years from the date of the cause of action. However, the present complaint is filed after the lapse of about 15 years. Since complainant came to know non contribution towards PF through the letters written by opposite party dated 28.03.2003, 24.07.2003 and 03.07.2006. In view of the same the complaint is barred by limitation. Further the complainant has failed to refund the amount towards PF account despite of calling for payment of the amount on several occasions by opposite party. The opposite party without deducting the amount towards PF from the salary of complainant dispersed the entire salary amount to the complainant from 1987 to 1994.  The complainant has not placed any material to establish that, he has contributed towards PF consequently the complainant has not become “Consumer” under CP Act 1986. Thereby this Forum opined that the complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service by the opposite party hence, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs. Accordingly point no.1 answered in the negative and consequently, point no.2 does not arise for consideration.

9. Point no.3:- In view of the findings on point no.1 and 2 the complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is barred by limitation and complainant is  a not consumer.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Parties shall bear their own costs.
3. Furnish the copy of this order to the parties, as per Rules