D.O.F. 30.04.2003

                                          D.O.O. 25.11.2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri.K.Gopalan                :         President

                                      Smt. K.P.Preethakumari:         Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy               :        Member

Dated this the 25^th day of  November, 2010.

C.C.No.131/2003

A.J. Thressiamma,

D/o. John,                                                           :         Complainant

Parappurath House,

P.O. Keezhpally, Kannur                                     

(Rep. by Adv. John Joseph)   

1. The Secretary, Board of Trustees, EPF,

    State Farms Corporation of India Ltd.

    No.14-15, Farms Bhavan, Nehru Palace,

    New Delhi – 19.                                                         :         Opposite party

2.  The Director,

     Central State Farm Aaralam,

     P.O. Aaralam Farm, Via Peravoor

(Rep. by Adv. U. K. Ramakrishnan)           

O R D E R

Sri. K. P. Preethakumari, Member.

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay the balance amount due to the complainant under her EPF account with 12% interest along with ` 2000 as compensation with cost. 

          The case of the complainant is that she is an ex-employee of State Aaralam Farm retired from service on 05.04.2001 in consequence of option of Voluntary Separation Scheme proposed by opposite party 2.  She has 23 years of service from 21.09.1978 and she was a subscriber of EPF, soon after joining and her EPF account No. is 064401 and the 1^st opposite party is administering the EPF account of the complainant.  The opposite party 2 is bound to collect the contribution from the complainant and other employees and to pay the same to opposite party 1 and the opposite party 1 is expected to collect the amount due from the complainant along with opposite parties contribution and the contribution from the Central Government and to add interest to the amount so collected from time to time according to law.

          The complainant submitted an application in the prescribed form during April, 2001, before opposite party 2 for disbursement of EPF benefits and the complainant received ` 23,190/- only on 01.06.2002 through opposite party 2 towards EPF benefits. But as far as the complainant is concerned she is entitled to get more than this.  As per the Annual EPF Account Statement given to the complainant by opposite party a sum of ` 80,671  is accrued in the name of the complainant.  The complainant was not given any opportunity to make objection.  Since the annual account statement for the year 2000-01 is not given to her.  Moreover the opposite party is duty bound to disburse the EPF benefits within 30 days from the date of application that is on or before 05.05.2001. Due to the negligence and omission on the part of opposite party, the complainant could receive her EPF benefits after an inordinate delay of more than 13 months. The opposite party has not computed the interest and credited the same in the complainants account.  So the complainant had issued a registered lawyer notice and the opposite party, issued a one sentence reply stating that no amount is due to the complainant.  There is grave deficiency in the service rendered by opposite party 1 and according to the complainant, the inordinate delay in disbursing the EPF is due to the negligence as part of 2^nd opposite party and also due to the delay in sending the application to the opposite party 1.  There is more than ` 80,000 is due to the complainant towards EPF benefit and she has withdrawn only a sum of Rs.18,000 as non-refundable loan.  Out of the refundable loan of 5000 taken by her a sum of ` 2400 is already deducted from her salary.  So the complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of more than ` 40,000 from opposite party 1.  The complainant is also entitled to get 12% interest per annum from the date of accrual till realization.  The co-workers of the complainant with identical service conditions have obtained more than   ` 60,000.  Hence the complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum, both opposite  parties appeared and filed their version stating that the complainant is not a consumer as per the Act since she had not availed any service of opposite parties for any consideration.Moreover the relationship between opposite party 2 and the complainant was that of an employer-employee and also the petition is not maintainable before the Forum.  Moreover the complainant has no case that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

          The complainant had retired from service on 05.04.2001 and on her retiring from service she had been paid the exgratia amount and other retirement benefits due to her including the amount due to her under EPF account as accrued till the date of her retirement. There is no merit in the statement that the complainant is entitled for an amount of ` 40,000 from her EPF account by placing reliance on the account statement for the period 1999-2000.  As per the closing balance on 31.03.2000 the amount under the complainant’s account was `16,137.50 and as per the statement ending 31.03.2001, the complainant is entitled for an amount of ` 18,959.50 and the complainant was paid ` 23,190 by calculating the interest upto the previous month of payment.  There is no merit in the allegation that there has been an inordinate delay in paying the amount due to her.  The delay in disbursing the amount occurred on account of the fact that several employees of the Farm availed VSS/VRS at the same time and there by the applications submitted by all of them had to be duly processed.  Interest had been calculated upto previous month to the payment and the complainant has made the claim without any bonafides and with ulterior motives and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Uupon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.     Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2.     Whether there is any deficiency of service on the party of opposite parties?

3.     Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?

4.     Relief and cost.

Issue No.1 :

          The case of the complainant is that she is the retired employee of opposite party 2 and opposite party 1 is maintaining her EPF account and the opposite party 1 has not released the entire EPF amount accrued by her within time.  But the opposite parties contended that the relationship between opposite party 2 and the complainant is an employer-employee relationship and hence the complainant is not a consumer and Forum lacks jurisdiction to decide the case.  But our Hon’ble Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Shivakumar Joshi which was reported in 2000 NCJ SC 185, held that member of a Employees Provident Fund and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is a consumer under this Act. The Regional Provident Fund commissioner discharges statutory function and does not discharge any sovereign function and hence it is therefore service.  So we hold the view that the complainant is a consumer under the Act and hence the Forum has ample jurisdiction to decide the case and hence issue no.1 is found in favour of the complainant.

Issues 2 to 4 :

          The complainant’s further case is that the opposite party had disbursed only a sum of ` 23,190 towards the EPF benefit eventhough a sum of ` 80,671 is accrued in her account.  Eventhough she had taken  ` 5000 as refundable loan an amount of ` 2400 is deducted from her salary and hence she is entitled to get ` 40,000 more from opposite party.  In order to prove this, the complainant has produced Ext. A1 to A4, i.e., Annual EPF Statement of Account for 1999-2000 issued by opposite party 1.  Photocopy of D.D. for ` 23,190, copy of lawyer notice and reply from opposite party 2.  In order to disprove the case opposite party produced a statement regarding the accrued amount already paid to the complainant and opposite party 2 produced a Broad Sheet of the account for 2000-2001 of employees of opposite party 2.  But the opposite party has not produced the Accounts Statement of the complainant’s  account.

          During the proceedings the complainant has filed a petition for an order directing the opposite party 1 to produce the entire records pertaining to EPF account number of her and as per the interlocutory application an order was issued by the Forum directing the opposite party 1 to produce the document.   But the administrator, Aaralam Farm had filed an affidavit to the effect that they are not in a position to produce the documents since, the Government of Kerala had take over the Central State Farm, Aaralam on 21.06.2004 as per a tripartiate agreement and after this the Board of Trustees was dissolved and entire documents, records and registers maintained by Board of Trustee was handed over to EPF authorities.  Later on they have filed another affidavit for directing the complainant to seek necessary details from EPF authorities, Kannur.  As per a detailed order dated 16.03.2009, the Forum directed opposite party 1 to produce the documents pertaining to the EPF account of the complainant.  But no documents are produced by them.  So the documents before the Forum is only an account statement for the year 1999-2000 ie A1 and A9 Broad Sheet of Account of employees of Aaralam Farm and statement of the amount entitled by the complainant.  While going through Ext.A1 Statement it is seen that the opening balance as on the month of April 1999 is  ` 9163.78 as progressive amount including employees contribution and ` 4927.75 as progressive amount including employees contribution.

          As per this Ext.A1 statement the Net Closing Balance after deducting ` 5000 the refundable advance there is a balance amount of       ` 16,237.  But as per the statement produced by opposite party 1 the complainant had accrued an amount of ` 23,959.5. But the balance as on 31.03.2001 is shown in that A1 statement as ` 18,959.5 after deducting ` 5000 as advance paid.  In short there is a double deduction of ` 5000 is seen in the statement.  The complainant’s averment is that he has to repay only an amount of ` 5000 as refundable advance.  Moreover, opposite party has no case that she has to pay more than this ` 5000.  So from perusal of document produced before the Forum proves that the opposite party had deducted ` 10000 by way of deducting          ` 5000 twice from the complainant’s account eventhough she is only bound to repay ` 5000.  So there is a difference of ` 5000 is seen in the documents produced before the Forum.  The other documents are not produced before the  Forum to verify and we are not in a position to came to the conclusion that the account maintained by the opposite parties is correct.  So it is seen that there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in keeping the correct and prompt account.  So the opposite party 1 is liable to refund the above stated amount of ` 5000 to the complainant along with 12% interest from 31.03.2001 upto the realization of the amount as per Section 72 of EPF Scheme.

          The other contentions of the complainant is that there is delay on the part of opposite party in releasing the claim amount.  But there is no document before us to came to the conclusion that there caused delay in disbursing the amount.  But there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party 1 for which he is liable to compensate the complainant by giving ` 2000 as compensation and ` 500 as cost along with the above stated amount of ` 5000 with 12% interest from 31.03.2001 till realization of the amount and order passed accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party 1 to pay ` 5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only)  with 12% interest from 21.03.2001 till realization with ` 2000 (Rupees Two Thousand only) as compensation and ` 500 (Rupees Five Hundred only)  as 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 as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.            

                             Sd/-                      Sd/-                 Sd/-

President                 Member            Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.   Annual EPF account statement given to the complainant for the

        year 1999-2000.

A2.   Copy of the DD sent to the complainant by O.P. No.1.

A3.   Copy of the Lawyer Notice.

A4.   Copy of the reply sent by O.P. No.1.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

Nil

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT