D.O.F. 30.04.2003 D.O.O. 03.01.2011 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 3rd day of January, 2010. C.C.No.134/2003 V. Govindan, S/o. Chennan, Valiyaparambil House, : Complainant Chathiroor, Keezhpally P.O., Kannur Dist. (Rep. by Adv. John Joseph) 1. The Secretary, Board of Trustees, EPF, State Farms Corporation of India Ltd., No.14-15, Farms Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19. : Opposite parties 2. The Director, Central State Farm Aralam, P.O. Aralam Farm, Via. Peravoor. (Rep. by Adv. U.K. Ramakrishnan) O R D E R Sri. Smt. 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 his EPF account with 12% interest per annum from date of entitlement and to take steps for disbursement of family pension benefits along with compensation and cost. The complainant’s case is that he is an ex-exployee of opposite party 2 and retired from service on 05.04.2001 as per V.S.S. proposed by opposite party 2. He is a subscriber of EPF with A/c.No.04619. The opposite party 2 is duty bound to collect contribution from the complainant and other employees and to maintain the EPF account. Opposite party 1 is liable to collect the amount due from the complainant along with their contribution and from the Central Government and to add interest to the amount so collected from time to time as per law and also to send the necessary papers in respect of Family pension due to the complainant to the EPF Commissioner for disbursement of Family Pension to the complainant. The complainant received a sum of ` 36,325 on 30.05.2002 through opposite party 2 as EPF benefits, eventhough he had submitted application in the prescribed form during April, 2001. This amount is very little as against her entitlement. According to annual EPF account of 1999-2000 given by opposite party to complainant more than ` 1 lakh is accrued in the account of the complainant. The annual account of 2000-01 is not given by opposite party and hence the complainant has not received any opportunity to make objection. Opposite party 1 is duty bound to disburse EPF benefits, to the complainant within 30 days from the date of application, that is on or before 05.05.2001. But the complainant had received her EPF benefits after an inordinate delay of more than 11 months and not computed interest as per law also. Eventhough the complainant issued a notice to that effect opposite party issued a reply stating that no amount is due to the complainant. According to the complainant he is entitled to get more than ` 80,000 towards his EPF benefits. The complainant has withdrawn only a sum of ` 14,000 as non-refundable loan and had repaid it. So the complainant is entitled to get more than ` 30,000 towards the EPF benefits after deducting the amount already paid to him. The delay and non-disbursement of entire amount was caused due to the deficient service of opposite party and hence the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest per annum from the date of accrual till realization as per Section 72 of EPF Act along with compensation. The complainant submitted necessary application before opposite party 2 for disbursement of Family Pension during 2001, immediately after retirement. The complainant is entitled to receive family pension within 30 days from the date of filing application form. The date of birth of the complainant is 27.08.1942, the complainant is entitled to get family pension from the year 2000, on attainment of 58 years of age, so far the complainant has not received family pension due to the wilful omission and latches on the part of opposite party. The complainant is entitled to get family pension with retrospective effect from May, 2001. The complainant could not receive the family pension benefits. Hence the complaint. Upon receiving the notice from the Forum, both opposite parties appeared an filed their version contending that the complainant is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. The relationship between the opposite party 2 and the complainant is an employer-employee relationship. They have the allegation that pension is not being disbursed to him. The pension is to be disbursed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, and they are not a party to the proceedings and hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The complainant had retired from service on 05.04.2001 and on his retirement he had been paid exgratia amount and other retirement benefits including the amounts under EPF account accrued till the date of his retirement. As per the records of the Farm, the complainant was entitled to only an amount of ` 28501.50 for the period ending 1999-2000 and for the period of 2000-01 the complainant is entitled to a total amount of ` 32,875.50 and the complainant has been paid a total amount of ` 36,632 by calculating the interest and hence there is no merit in the Statement of the complainant that there has been inordinate delay in disbursing the amounts under EPF. The delay was caused on account of the fact that several employees of the Farm availed VRS at the same time and hence it caused some time for processing the application. So the opposite party is no way liable to compensate the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon 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 part of opposite parties. 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence in the above case consists of the Ext.A1 to A3. Issue No.1 The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, since the relationship between the opposite party 2 and the complainant is employer-employee relationship. But the Apex Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Shivkumar Joshi, held that a member of Provident Fund Scheme established under EPF and miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 is consumer under the Act and the same was reported in 2000 NCJ SC 185 and hence we hold the view that the complainant is a consumer under the Act and hence the complainant is maintainable before the Forum. The further case of the complainant is that he had received an amount of ` 36,325 as the EPF benefit, eventhough an amount of more than ` 1,00,000 was accrued in his account during 1999-2000. Moreover he further contended that the pension amount was not disbursed to him, eventhough he had applied for the same during April, 2001. But the opposite party contended that since the pension has to be disbursed by the EPF Commissioner, he has to be impleaded as necessary party and accordingly they have filed a petition for impleadment and consequential amendment and the same was allowed. But the complainant represented before the Forum that they are not carried out the amendment since CC 233/2006 was filed for fresh claim. So the rest of the issue to be decided is that whether the complainant is entitled to any mare amount towards his EPF benefit. The complainant contended that he is entitled to get ` 30,000 more towards his EPF benefits and to prove this he has produced Exts. A1 to A3 ie Annual EPF Statement of Account for the year 1999-2000 lawyer notice and letter dated 29.08.2002 issued by State Farms Corporation of India. As per Ext.A1 ie Annual EPF Statement of Account for 1999-2000, it is seen that an amount of ` 28,501.50 is accrued by the complainant during 1999-2000. So it is very clear that the averment made by the complainant that during 1999-2000 an amount of 1,00,000 was accrued in the EPF account of complainant is not correct. There is no other document before us to prove that contentions of the complainant. So we are of the view that the amount disbursed to the complainant is correct and it is seen that there is no merit in the case and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Annual EPF Statement of Account for the year 1999-2000. A2. Lawyer Notice dated 03.08.2002. A3. Reply letter dated 29.08.2002. Exhibits for the opposite party Nil Witness examined for the complainant Nil Witness examined for the opposite party Nil /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
