BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 78/2012.
THIS THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa, B.A. LLB. MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Radha W/o. Shrinivasan, Age: 56 years,
Occ: Aya in HGM Co. Ltd., Hospital, Hutti, R/o. Quarter No. M-2 Medical Quarters Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner,
(EPPO) Sub-Regional office, Garaladinni Complex, Sath Kacheri Road, Raichur.
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
EPF Organization (Regional Office) Beside Remand Hold, Aland Road, Vijayanagar,
Gulbarga.
3. The General Manager, Hutti Gold Mines Co.
Ltd., Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
4. Smt. Shanti W/o. Sundaram, Age: 54 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Ramrahim Colony, Near SC/ST Hostel, H.G. Co. Ltd., Hutti Camp, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
Date of institution :- 14-09-2012.
Date of disposal :- 28-09-2012.
Complainant represented by Sri. Rajshekar, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
ORDER ON ADMISSION
By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-
This is the complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Radha against opposite Nos. 1 to 4 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to pay eligible pension amount of her brother late Mani since 2006 with compensation and cost.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, one Mani S/o. N.K. Ayyar was working in the Mill Department of opposite No-3 Hutti Gold Mines. He was unmarried, complainant is the eldest sister of said Mani, when Mani was in service on 14-08-2006 he died. Complainant and other sisters are successors to the property of complainant. Apart from it, complainant is the nominee in all his service records including LIC policy.
Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 have settled all the benefits and paid to her but, opposite No-1 refused to settle the pension in her favour. She approached and requested the opposites in person and in writing, but none of them have considered her request. Accordingly, she field this complaint for the reliefs as noted in it.
3. Heard on the admission and perused the records.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of stated above. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether this complaint is fit case to admit it as a consumer complaint and to proceed with the matter in the light of the facts pleaded by the complainant.
2. What order.
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
1) In Negative.
2) In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following.
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
6. We have gone through the facts pleaded by the complainant in her complaint. She specifically pleaded that, she is the nominee in all service records of her brother late Mani. Keeping in view of the facts stated by her, we have gone through the entire records submitted by her in support of this claim. We have noticed one important document which is letter dt. 23-11-11 issued by opposite No1. The said letter reveals the real facts of dispute in between complainant and opposite No-4. This complainant Smt. Radha was registered as a nominee under provident fund and pension scheme by her late brother Mani in the year 1980. The said letter further reveals the fact that, her late brother Mani cancelled her nomination and field fresh Form No-2 on 09-11-99 by registering the name of one Shanta who is opposite No-4 as his nominee to receive provident fund and pension from 09-11-99, thereafter, the said Mani died. In view of the facts noted in this letter, the present complainant Miss Radha is no more as a nominee of her deceased brother Mani, one Shanta as a nominee. It appears from the facts pleaded in the complaint that, the present complainant does not intended to reveal such real facts in this complaint.
7. We are of the view that, there might be a dispute in between present complainant Radha and the later nominee Miss. Shanta opposite No-4 in getting provident fund and pension of Mani. As such, we are of the view that, present complainant is not coming under the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, as she is a consumer and she cannot raise consumer dispute under the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(e) of C.P.Act, there cannot be any deficiency in service by any one of the opposites under the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(g) of C.P.Act, and she cannot file a consumer complaint as defined U/sec. 2(1)(c) of C.P. Act. Hence the present complaint under any one of the provisions of C.P. Act is not maintainable before this Forum and we have no justification to adjudicate such type of complaint. Hence, we are not inclined to admit this case. Accordingly, we answered Point No-1 in negative.
POINT NO.2:-
8. In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The present complaint filed by the complainant is not admitted as it is not maintainable before consumer forum.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 28-09-2012)
Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur District Consumer Forum Raichur.
