D.O.F. 21.07.2004
D.O.O. 30.11.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President
K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 30th day of December, 2011.
C.C.No.163/2004
K.P. Abdulla,
S/o. Ahammed,
Koppilan House, : Complainant
P.O. Keezhpally,
Kannur District.
(Rep. by Adv. John Joseph)
1. The Secretary,
Board of Trustees, EPF,
State Farms Corporation of India Ltd,
14-15 Farms Bhavan, Nehru Place
New Delhi. : Opposite Parties
2. The Assistant PF Commissioner,
EPF Organisation, V.K. Complex,
Fort Road, Kannur
(Rep. by Adv. Shashi D. Nambiar)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing opposite parties to furnish a detailed statement to the complainant regarding the amounts accrued in his EPF account and to furnish a pass book to the complainant regarding his EPF account as contemplated by the EPF scheme with ` 5000 as compensation and cost.
The complainant’s case is that he is an employee of Aralam Far and subscriber of EPF and allied schemes. The complainant joined in the year 1972 and is started subscribing to EPF during 1974 and his account number is DL/3670/000271. The 1st opposite party is administering the EPF account of the complainant. The complainant has availed a total sum of ` 29,000 from his EPF account towards refundable and non-refundable advance. Out of which ` 15,000 is refundable loan and already almost the entire amount along with interest are paid and only a meager amount remains unpaid. During 98-99, the complainant had availed a sum of ` 5,000 as refundable advance whereas as per the annual account statement furnished by opposite party a sum of ` 10,000 is shown as refundable loan instead of ` 5,000. Subsequently the complainant received an annual EPF account statement during 2001-02, stating that the net closing balance as minus ` 433. Since there was many discrepancies in the EPF account statements given by the opposite party, the complainant made several oral and written complaints to the opposite party through the Account Officer, Central State Farm, Aralam requesting to verify the EPF account of the complainant for the past 10 years and to make necessary corrections in the same. Though the accounts officer gave two reply dated 30.07.03 and 23.10.03, admitting some omissions and mistake on the part of opposite parties, the grievance of the complainant remains unreddressed. Subsequently the complainant received an account statement for the year 2002-03 showing the closing balance as ` 5,469. The complainant is having 30 years of subscription to EPF and as per his estimate around 1 lakh rupees ought to have been accrued in his credit. The entire account statement given by opposite party is incorrect. The opposite party has not credited the amounts paid by the complainant, his employer as well as the interest accrued in their own account from time to time according to law. As per the EPF scheme, the contribution from the employer and employee is 12% of the total salary as against the statutory contribution is 10%. Though there were several representations from various trade unions the opposite party is not furnishing pass book to EPF subscribers, as per the statutory provisions. In view of non-issuance of passbook regarding EPF account, the complainant and other employees are not in a position to make effective objection regarding the mistakes in their EPF account. During 2004 June the Central State Farm was taken over by Govt. of Kerala for the purpose of Tribal rehabilitation and hereafter the 2nd opposite party is administering the EPF account and now the entire documents are with 2nd opposite party and is not producing the relevant documents. Pertaining the EPF account the complainant is under a firm belief that the 1st opposite party has not handed over the relevant records showing the EPF subscription collected from the employer as well as from the complainant from 1974 to 2004 and other disbursement in the EPF account by way of loan. So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Due to non-availability of records, the complainant could not availed the EPF benefits even after his voluntary retirement on 2007. The complainant has suffered much mental pain and agony evenafter the span of long 6 years the opposite party has not taken positive steps to redress the grievances and the complainant is entitied to enhance compensation. Hence this complaint.
In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed their version. The 1st opposite party filed version contending that complainant is not a consumer since he has not availed any service for consideration. The Aralam Farm wherein the complainant was working has been assigned to the State Government as per the terms and conditions of tri-party agreement. The administrator Aralam Farm, is a necessary party and apart from this the complainant has no case that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
2nd opposite party also filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The employer is responsible for deducting the Provident Fund Contribution from the wages of their employees and to remit to the concerned P.F. account along with their own contribution every month. Unless and until there is no grievances made by the employees, normally the opposite party rely upon the amount of contribution remitted towards P.F. and the statutory returns submitted in this behalf by the employee. It is not correct to say that 2nd opposite party is not producing the relevant records pertaining to complainant. 1st opposite party forwarded a consolidated list containing names of all employees, their opening balance as on 01.04.04, contribution and interest accrued for the period from 01.04.04 to 20.06.04 along with a single cheque for the entire amount to the opposite party on 27.10.05. As per the statement, complainant’s closing balance as on 20.06.04 is ` 33,538. Thereafter the 2nd opposite party is issuing annual PF account slip to employees who are contributing towards PF regularly till 2009-10. The complainant never raised any dispute regarding the amount furnished in the annual account slip with 2nd opposite party. If the complainant had any grievances, he could have been approached the 2nd opposite party for redressal of his grievances. The 2nd opposite party had forwarded annual account statement of all employees to the employer ie M/s. Aralam Farm every year commencing from 2004-05 to 2009-10 on various dates and lasting on 02.07.10. It is the duty of the employer, M/s. Aralam Farm to distribute the account slip to the concerned individual employees every year and it is responsibility of the individual employee to verify the amount furnished in the annual account slip and if any discrepancies noticed, the same should be immediately brought to the notice of opposite party and the complainant has not made any grievances regarding the amount shown in the account slip. The opposite party has produced the details of amount lying in the account of the complainant on the close of each year. The complainant, from the date of retirement on 20.03.09, had never submitted application in Form-19 for final settlement of P.F. account. On 22.11.07, the complainant submitted application in Form 10-D only for claiming monthly member pension and released the pension on 31.12.07. If the complainant had submitted application for settlement of his PF, the 2nd opposite party would have been settled the claim immediately. Because of the non-submission of application of settlement of PF account, the opposite parties are unable to settle the claim. As per the calculation an amount of ` 71,028 is in the credit of complainant as on 31.03.2010 and this amount will be released on due application in Form-19. So the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and the Forum has jurisdiction to try the case?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
4. Relief and cost.
The evidence in the above case consists of the chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 to A7.
Issue No.1 :
The opposite parties in the above case contended that the complainant is not a consumer and hence the Forum has o jurisdiction to try the case since the complainant has not availed any service from the opposite parties for consideration. But in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Shivkumar Joshi, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a member under the Provident Fund Scheme established under Emplyees Provident Fund and miscellaneous Provisions, 1952, is a consumer. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner discharges statutory function and does not discharge any sovereign function and it is service under the Act and the Act is aimed to protect the interest of the user of such services which was reported in 2000 NCJ. So we are of the opinion that it is a well settled position of law that the complainant is a consumer and hence the Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case and hence Issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.
Issue No.2 to 4 :
The further case of the complainant is that he is a member of EPF since 1974 and 1st opposite party is administering his EPF account till 20.06.04 and thereafter by 2nd opposite party. But the 1st opposite party has not accounted the accrued benefit of the complainant in his account and in the account statement submitted by 1st opposite party during 2001-02 and hence there is discrepancy. So the complainant is entitled to get the statement of account and the accrued benefit. But opposite parties contended that the complainant has not submitted Form 19 for the EPF benefit eventhough he had retired from service since December, 2007. Accordingly the complainant submitted Form-19 and 2nd opposite party has deposited ` 71,028 in the bank account of the complainant and accordingly the complainant submitted that he has no further claim against 2nd opposite party. So we are exonerating 2nd opposite party from further liability.
But the complainant contended that 2nd opposite party has not credited the amount properly and hence the amount accrued in the credit of the complainant during 2001-02 and 2002-03 is more than one lakh as per Ext.A4 and A5. But as per the Ext.A4 and A5 statement, the closing balance as per A4 is `-433 and that of A5 is ` 5469. As per A4 and A5, the calculation shown is correct and Ext.A3 clearly states that the 1st opposite party has given a refundable advance to complaint during 2001 and was recovered from the complainant. There is no other documents before us with respect to the calculation statement. As per the available documents it cannot be say that there is deficiency of service on the part of 1st opposite party. Moreover the 2nd opposite party has disbursed the accrued amount in the account of the complainant. So we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly .
In the result, the complaint dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Complaint given to the employer dated 17.07.03.
A2. Reply dated 30.07.03.
A3. Reply dated 23.10.03.
A4. Annual EPF account statement for the period 2001-02.
A5. Annual EPF account statement for the period 2002-03.
A6. True copy of lawyer notice with postal receipt.
A7. Postal acknowledgment.
Exhibits for the opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
