Punjab

Hoshiarpur

CC/14/203

Jyoti Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

St. Soldier Divine Public School - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs. Gurpreet Kaur

04 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOSHIARPUR

(3RD FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HOSHIARPUR)

C.C. No. 203/11.09.2014

Decided on : 04.02.2015

Jyoti Sharma aged 24 years d/o Ashok Kumar Sharma r/o New Gobind Nagar, backside Sonalika Factory, ward no.8 Hoshiarpur.

Complainant

Vs.

1. St. Soldier Divine Public School, Hoshiarpur Road, Garhdiwala through The Principal .

2. Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sahota Complex, 171, Green Park, 2nd floor, near bus stand, Jalandhar through its Commissioner.

Opposite parties

 

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar,President.

             Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary, Member.

             Mrs. Sushma Handoo,Member.

 

Present: Mrs.Gurpreet Kaur, counsel for the complainant.

             OP No.1 exparte.

             Sh.Brij Thakur, counsel for OP No.2.

 

 

ORDER

PER ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against St. Soldier Divine Public School through its Principal and another (hereinafter referred to as OP No.1 & OP No.2 respectively, for short) praying for a direction to the OPs to release the EPF amount from 6.7.2012 to 11.7.2013 with interest @ 9% per annum and for payment of Rs.20,000/- as damages for inconvenience and harassment suffered by her and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she remained as Teacher in St. Soldier Divine Public School, Garhdiwala Hoshiarpur from 6.7.2012 to 11.7.2013. It is averred that complainant had filled the relevant Employees Provident Fund Form as the Principal had suggested to fill the same for getting the EPF from EPF Department. OP No.1 used to deduct the amount for EPF from the salary of the complainant @ Rs.500/- per month approximately. It is further averred that she had left the job on 11.7.2013 as she had joined B.Ed. Course. It is further averred that complainant had requested the Principal of OP No.1 to get released her EPF as early as possible from EPF Authorities as she required the money for giving her B.Ed. fees but all in vain. However, EPF amount has not been released by the OPs till date despite repeated requests of the complainant . Further, the Principal has not given her any paper regarding the submission of documents to the EPF Authorities. Due to non payment of the EPF amount the complainant suffered a great loss as she was in dire need of money. As OPs have refused to accede the genuine request of the complainant therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed as stated at the outset of this order.

3. Registered notice was served upon OP No.1 who sent a letter dated 26.9.2014 addressed to the complainant with a copy to this Forum but none appeared on its behalf. On fresh notice issued vide order dated 13.10.2014, a letter dated 27.10.2014 was received on 3.11.2014 in continuation of previous letter. However, none put in appearance on behalf of OP No.1 so, it was proceeded against ex parte on 17.11.2014.

   In the letter dated 26.9.2014, OP No.1 stated that complainant had not adopted proper procedure to get EPF as she had not filled the prescribed application forms for the release of payment . The amount claimed was also not correct . She was advised to fill in correct amount duly countersigned by the employer before submitting the application in Provident Fund Office. In letter dated 27.10.2014, it was stated that the amount of provident fund deducted was deposited in Provident Fund Office, Jalandhar and the payments were to be released by the Commissioner, P.F.Office after getting proper application forms. Insturctions in this regard were forwarded to the complainant through registered post but not response was received from her .

4. OP No.2 filed contested written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable against it as no withdrawal application in prescribed forms 19 & 10-C has been received by the replying OP either from the complainant or from OP No.1 till date. As per the statutory requirement of para 72 of the EPF scheme 1952, the requirement of the above claim forms is mandatory for the settlement of claim; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try the present complaint against OP No.2 as there is no deficiency in service on its part; Complainant is estopped by her act and conduct to file the present complaint; in the present complaint, intricate question of facts are involved which requires lengthy full scale trial and recording of evidence of number of witnesses, hence the matter is required to be referred to the Civil Court for proper adjudication. On merits, more or less similar version of OP No.2 has been given with a prayer for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex. C-1, Ex. C-2, affidavit of Ashok Kumar Ex. C-3, copy of EPF form Mark C-4, qualification proof Mark C-5, Experience certificate/proof of job in school Mark C-6 and closed the evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jai Shankar Parshad, Ex. OP-2/1 and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.2 have argued on the lines of their pleadings.

9. We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record.

10. The application of provisions of The Employees' Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder to the establishment (school) of OP No.1 is not denied . However, OP NO.1 has not come forward to contest the claim put forward by the complainant by way of present complaint . None bothered to put in appearance on its behalf to disclose the reason actually hindering the process of release of EPF to the complainant. The reply filed by OP NO.1 in the form of letters dated 26.9.2014 and 27.10.2014 failed to bring out difficulty faced by it in attesting the requisite forms though complainant has taken a specific stand in her complaint and duly sworn affidavits Ex. C-1, C-2 that she had requested the Principal of OP No.1 to get released her EPF as early as possible from EPF Authorities as she required the money for giving her B.Ed. fee but all in vain. However, EPF amount has not been released by the OPs till date despite repeated requests of the complainant. In these letters , OP No.1 has led neither the complainant nor this Forum anywhere by putting up a vague, general and incomplete reply without clearly stating as to the amount deducted, the period of deduction, the amount of contribution, code no. alloted to OP No.1 and the letter vide which the said amount was forwarded to OP No.2 in case of the employees for the particular year/session including the complainant . Complainant has brought on record prescribed application duly filled in the shape of Mark C-4 to C-6. Therefore,it is difficult to believe that complainant had not filled the prescribed forms for the release of EPF as alleged in letter dated 26.9.2014. The conduct of OP No.1 as reflected through letters referred heretofore cannot be said to be fair and proper and as such deficiency of service on its part is writ large . Such deficiency stands further accentuated by the conduct of OP No.1 in not coming forward to explain the position by specifically setting out the difficulties being faced by it in discharging its statutory duty under the Act ibid . Therefore, in our considered opinion, complainant is entitled to a direction to OP No.1 to fulfill its legal obligation to attest the prescribed application forms of the complainant and to forward the same to OP No.2 to enable OP No.2 to release the EPF to the complainant. Complainant is also found entitled to appropriate amount of compensation for harassment and mental agony for not performing its obligation of attestation of requisite forms by OP No.1 for withdrawal of EPF besides costs for avoidable litigation to which the complainant has been unnecessarily put by it. However, no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 is made out or proved.

11. In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by complainant is partly accepted with a direction to the OP No.1 to get completed the requisite forms from the complainant for withdrawal of EPF and forward the same to OP NO.2 to enable the latter to release the EPF amount to the complainant and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs. The order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of complaint i.e. 11.09.2014 till realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced.

04.02.2015

 

(Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary) (Mrs. Sushma Handoo) (Ashok Kumar )

Member                              Member                       President

SS