F.A.  No. 492 of 2008

F.A. No. 375 of 2008

            Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2.        Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum. F.A. No. 492 of 2008 has been filed by O.P.No.3 whereas F.A. No. 375 of 2008 is filed by O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.6.

3.        The unfolded story of the complainant is that complainant’s husband was an employee of erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board(OSEB) and subsequently the management of distribution was transferred to Grid Co and thereafter transferred to South Co. for proper management. It is alleged inter alia that the husband of the complainant was subscribing to EPF account No. OR/578/635 and was contributing to the said fund. Her husband expired on 8.7.1981, but after the death of her husband, pension and EPF dues were not settled by the opposite parties. She made correspondences with the authorities but failed to achieve any result. Thereafter, she approached the learned District Forum.

4.        The opposite party no. 4, Asst. Provident Commissioner filed written version stating that the P.F. dues in respect of the husband of the complainant has already been transferred to the OSEB, EPF Trust Grid Co., Bhubanaeswar vide Cheque No. 463072 dated 25.2.2003 amounting Rs. 62,975/- ( Employees share Rs. 32,009/- and employer share Rs. 30,966/-). Hence, there is no deficiency on their part. O.P.No. 3 and 5 did not reply.

5.        After hearing the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order :-

                “xxxxx     xxxxx

                The petition of the complainant is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. 2,3 and 6 and dismissed against other O.Ps.

                The O.P.No.6 is directed to make payment of the E.P.F. dues with interest as per rule from the year 1981 till its final payment and also pay the family pension to the complainant from August, 2003 as arrear pension and to pay regularly the family pension to the complainant as admissible to her. Since the O.P.No.3 and 6 have made inordinate delay in finalisation of the pension case even inspite of direction by this forum in C.D. No. 30 of 2002 right from 2003 they are liable to pay a monetary compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) to the complainant for causing mental agony to an old pensioner.

                In view of the above order, there will be no order for payment of cost. O.Ps. 2,3 and 6 to comply the order within two months.”

6.        Learned counsel for the appellant in F.A.No. 492 of 2008 submitted that the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order without considering the  written version filed by them  with proper perspectives. According to him, the complaint under the Act is not maintainable. He further submitted that complainant is an employee under the OSEB and subsequently the management is taken over by South Co. Since the Provident Fund is being contributed to the OSEB, they being the Corporation have no relationship with the complainant. So question of providing service to complainant does not arise to bring the case under the Act.

7.        In support of his submission, he has relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vrs. Director, Health Services, Haryana and Ors, MANU/SC/0703/2013 and also a decision of the Apex Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, ONGC Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Consumer Education Research Society & Ors, MANU/SC/1695/2019. He also relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. Vrs. Shreepat Rao Kamde (decided in Civil Appeal No. 8472 of 2019).

8.        Learned counsel for the appellant in F.A. No. 375 of 2008 did not appear but essentially taken the same plea in the appeal as taken by appellant in F.A. No. 492 of 2008. Learned counsel for the Provident Commissioner, who is another opposite party appearing in the complaint case and respondent in both the appeal submitted that there is no order passed against him, but he wants to apprise the Commission about the fact that the consumer law is not applicable to the service of complainant due to nature of their service. Further, he submitted that the employees of the South Co have not contributed to EPF Account but contributing the  P.F. to the Grid Co Board. The case of the complainant is not coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant in the instant case is not maintainable.

9.        Considered the submissions of the parties, perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10.     It is admitted fact that the complainant is an employee of opposite parties no. 1,2 and 3.  It is also revealed from the decision of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vrs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors.(supra) that the Government Servant does not fall under definition of Consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act for which  there cannot be any consumer case so far as the service condition of Government Service is concerned. At the same  time, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, ONGC & Ors. Vrs. Consumer Education Research Society & Ors.(supra) held that where there is no relationship of consumer and service provider, case under the Act would not lie against the said Corporation. It is  revealed from pleading of parties and material on record that GRIDCO has a trust for employee and submission of learned counsel for RPF shows that GRIDCO has opted out from the EPF scheme as they have trust to look after PF scheme of their employees. So, there is no relationship  between Corporation and RPF for contribution of PF by complainant. As such, the present complaint is not maintainable. Rightly, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that money is kept being transferred from Grid Co to South Co. The question of payment of P.F. by the previous Provident Commissioner does not arise. On the other hand, it is clear from the affidavit of the appellant that the Act is not applicable to the complainant.

11.     In the facts and circumstances and in view of the discussions, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside..

12.     Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. No cost.

           Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with accrued interest, if any, on proper identification.  

 DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.