DOF 01.3.2004 DOO. 4.12. 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 4th day of December 2010 C.C.No.57/2004 1. Janaki Palleri, “Palleri House”, P.O.Keezhpally 670 704. 2. A.Shamsudheen, Kavuvila House, P.O. Keezhpally, Kannur 670 704. Complainant (Rep. by Adv.John Joseph) Secretary, Board of Trustees, EPF State Farms Corporation of India Ltd., 14-15 Farms Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Rep. by Adv.U.K.Ramakrishnan) Opposite parties O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay the balance amount in the complainant’s EPF account with 12% interest from date of entitlement with ` 2000 as compensation with cost. The case of the complainants is that they are retired employees of Central State Farm, Aralam during 2001 and were subscribers of EPF and allied schemes. The opposite party is duty bound to collect EPF contribution from the employees as well as the employer and deposit the same in reliable securities as authorized by EPF organization and return the EPF accumulation along with statutory interest to the employees upon the termination of their service. The first complainant is retired from service on 23.7.01 by opting voluntary separation scheme after completing 23 years of service with effect from 27.10.78 and having EPF account NO.003287. Even though she had filed an application for her EPF benefit soon after her retirement. She received the EPF benefits only on13.5.02 after an inordinate delay of one year. She had received only a sum of ` 22,571 towards provident fund benefits as against her entitlement of more than ` 85000. Even as per the annual EPF account statement given by the opposite party during the year 1996 - 1997 a sum of ` 65,885 were accumulated in her EPF account. Many of her colleagues with identical service conditions received more than `.70000 towards EPF benefits. The opposite party has not sanctioned the stipulated interest 12% per annum on account of the delay in his part to the complainant. The opposite party has not properly accounted the subscription received from her as well as the amounts payable by the employer from time to time. If the entire EPF account of the complainant No.1 is called for it would be revealed that the amount already paid to her is much less than her actual entitlement. The 2nd complainant retired from service on30.3.01 after completing 28 years of service with effect from 17.10.73. The EPF account No. of 2nd complainant is 000345. The opposite party paid his EPF benefits after an inordinate delay of about one year and he received only ` 22869 towards benefits under EPF as against his entitlement of more than rupees 1 lakh. The opposite party has not sanctioned the stipulated interest also on account of inordinate delay in disbursing the EPF benefits. Moreover the opposite party has not provided any pass book regarding EPF accounts to the complainants as per the EPF scheme. This is to avoid payment of actual benefits to the employer. Even though the first complainant had issued a lawyer notice dated 2.8.02 to the opposite party to disburse the balance amount due under her EPF account, the opposite party replied it with untenable contentions. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving the notice from the Forum opposite party appeared and filed his version stating the following contentions. According to opposite arty the complainants are not consumers and the Central state Farm Aralam and the employees had employer-employee relationship. On the retirement from the service they had been paid the ex-gratia amount and other retirement benefit including the amounts due to them as on the date of their retirement and which had accrued in their EPF account. The complainant has not produced any proof to substantiate their claim made in Para 3 to 5 of complaint. The complainants were paid the amounts due to them under the EPF account along with interest calculated up to the previous month of the date of payment and the delay in effecting payments to the complainants was on account of the fact that the several employees of the Farm had availed VSS/VRS at the same time and the application submitted by these employees had to be duly processed, which took some time. So there is no negligence on the part of opposite party as alleged and has not caused any personal or financial loss and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer? 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A4. Issue No. 1 The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer since they have not availed any service from the opposite party and the relationship between the complainants and the Farm is that of employee – employer relationship. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shivakumar Joshi held that the member of the EPF scheme established under EPF and miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 is a consumer under CP Act and provident Fund Commissioner discharge statutory 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. Issue Nos.2 to 4 The complainant’s further case is that the opposite party had disbursed only an amount of ` 22,571 towards her EPF benefits even though she had entitled for ` 85000 and only 22,869 even though he is entitled for more than one lakh rupees respectively to the first and 2nd complainant. In order to prove this they have produced Ext.A1 toA4 such as annual EPF statement of account for 1996-97 of first complainant, Annual EPF statement of account for 1999-00 of 2nd complainant, lawyer notice dt.2.8.02, and reply notice of opposite party. But the opposite party has not produced the detailed statement of complainant. But they have produced annual EPF statement of account for the year 2002-03 of both complainants. Because of the non-production of the documents the complainants have filed a petition for an order directing the opposite party to produce the entire records pertaining to EPF account number of the complainants and an order was already issued by the Forum directing the opposite party to produce the documents. But no documents were produced even though all the documents with respect to the complainants were maintained by the opposite party. As per Ext.A1 annual EPF statement of account for 1996-97 of first complainant she is entitled to get `12376 and as per EPF statement account of the year 2002-03 it is seen that she is entitled to get `22581 and the complainant admits that she had already received `22571. So it is seen as per available document that the first complainant had received the accrued benefit and hence we are of opinion that she is not entitled to get any amount more. Regarding the case of 2nd complainant the Ext.A2 shows that there is an amount of ` 38047 in the account of the complainant during 1999-2000. But as per annual EPF statement for the year 2002-03 shows that there is a balance amount of `22571. The 2nd complainant contended that he had received only ` 22869 as his EPF benefits. As per the Ext.A2 and the statement of account for the year 2002-03 there is a difference of ` 15476. But the opposite party has not given any explanation or produced any documents to deny this. More over the opposite party has no case that the complainant has withdrawn any amount. Even though there is a direction to produce the documents pertaining to the EPF account of the complainant they were not produced any documents. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party and hence the complainant No.2 is entitled to get ` 15476 with 12% interest from 31.3.2000 till the date of realisation of that amount with ` 1000 as cost of this proceedings and order passed accordingly. In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the 2nd complainant ` 15476(Rupees Fifteen thousand Four hundred and seventy six only) with 12 % interest from 31.3.2000 till the realisation of that amount with ` 1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1 & A2. Copy of annual EPF account statement given to complainants 1 & 2.for the year 96-97 & 99-10 A3Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A4.Reply notice Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil Witness examined for either side: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
