Date of Filing :15.10.2022
Date of Disposal :17.05.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:17.05.2024
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER
,
APPEAL No.2024/2022
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, Chennai
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Ministry of Labour
Govt. of India
No.37, Royapettah High Road
Chennai - 600 014
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Group 43, Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Ministry of Labour
Govt. of India
No.31, Royapetta High Road
Chennai - 600 014.
(By Mrs Nalini Venkatesh, Advocate) Appellants
- Versus -
1. Mr M Mahadevappa
S/o Late G Muddappa
Age 72 years
R/at C/o Paapegowda
No.1840, 2nd Cross
Triveni Maarga
Karasavadi Road
Kaveri Nagara, Mandya
2. The Managing Director
M/s Kotari Sugars and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.,
Pandavapura Respondents
: ORDER :
Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
01. This Appeal is filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by OPs 1 & 2, aggrieved by the Order dated 29.03.2022 passed in Complaint No.209/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya (for short, the District Commission).
02. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for Appellant. Inspite of service of Notice from this Commission for appearance, on Respondent No.1, none appeared, hence, their arguments is taken as heard. While, on Respondent No.2, Appellants have not taken any steps inspite of giving opportunity, hence, Dismissed the Appeal against Respondent No.2. Perused the Impugned Order, Grounds of Appeal and documents on record.
03. The District Commission after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and OPs 1 to 3 were jointly and severally held liable to pay a total amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and cost of the proceedings within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order etc.,
04. Feeling aggrieved by the Order, OPs 1 & 2 are in Appeal, inter-alia contending amongst other grounds, that the District Commission failed to take into consideration the fact that the Appellant upon receipt of new claim with correct bank details had processed the claim within 5 days and the amount of Rs.15,370/- was credited to Member’s bank account on 14.03.2018 within 5 days of receipt of the claim. The delay was due to non-submission of new claim/reauthorisation form with correct bank details and hence, the deficiency of service cannotbe attributed to them. Thus impugned order is contrary to the material available on record. As it can be seen, the Claim was processed within 5 days and the entitled amount was credited to the Member’s account within 5 days, much before the expiry of the statutory time limit of 20 days, as per the provision of EPF scheme 1952. The reasons assigned by the District Commission are not valid and cogent. Therefore, OPs 1 & 2 seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.
,,05. Perusal of the records reveals that it is not in dispute that, the Complainant was a retired employee of OP No 3 - M/s Kotari Sugars and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Pandavapura and it has got its Main Office at Chennai, wherein, OPs 1 & 2 are situated. The Complainant after his retirement, requested OPs for settlement of his PF amount and accordingly, OPs settled the PF amount of Rs.11,434/- vide Cheque No.512854 and another Cheque for Rs.4,696/- bearing No.905417 dated 20.01.2009. However, the Cheques were not honoured due to wrong mentioning of the SB Account Number of the Complainant’s Account and the Complainant had issued a letter to the OPs with a request sent the same for correction by indicating the proper Account Number. The allegation of the Complainant that inspite of repeated requests and demands, OPs failed to comply with the demands illegally retained his PF and EPS amount. Per contra, OPs had taken a defence that, they have already credited the said amount on 09.03.2018 to the complainant’s bank account, hence, deficiency of service cannot be attributed against them.
06. The observation of the District Commission in Paras 15 & 16 of its Order to the effect that the document produced by OPs 1 & 2 along with their version proves that they have deposited Rs.15,370/- on 13.03.2018 to the SB account No.013900101020004 in Corporation Bank, Mandya Branch which reflected that the same was credited on 14.03.2018. Per contra, on perusal of the copy of the Legal Notice dated 15.09.2016 got issued by the Complainant on the OPs, it reflects that, inspite of receiving the Legal Notice from the learned Counsel of Complainant, the OPs failed to comply with the demands made therein.
07. Thus on the perusal of the records, it reveals that OPs for the first time had sent the Cheque on 20.01.2009 mentioning a wrong Account Number and when the Cheque was not honoured, the Complainant had returned Cheque to the OPs and indicating his correct Account Number on 20.10.2009 vide his request letter of 16.12.2013. However, OPs credited the amount of Rs.15,370/- on 13.03.2018 only to the Complainant’s Bank Account maintained in Corporation Bank, Mandya Branch and the same stood credited on 14.03.2018. This clearly shows that OPs credited the said amount only after filing of his Complaint by the Complainant on 22.12.2017 before the District Commission. The act of OPs definitely amounts to deficiency in service. In the circumstances, the Impugned Order passed by the District Commission is just and proper and there are no strong reasons to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Appeal stands Dismissed.
8. The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.
9. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.
Lady Member Judicial Member President
*s
