By Sri.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint seeking to realize the amount due to the complainant from her PF account with interest and compensation.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant was working as a teacher in various schools from 9.6.66 onwards. She has retired from service on 31.3.2000, while working as Headmistress in Anayadi R.K.U.P.school. She was contributing to the PF amount from 1.7.1967 onwards. Her EPF Account Number is Q 8087 Her salary was being drawn from 7.4.1983 to 20.8.1988 through Sub Treasury, Sasthamcottaha from 3.10.1988 to 2.3.1989 through Sub Treasury, Karunagappally from 5.4.1989 to 20.12.1990 through Sub Treasury, Sasthamcottaha from 2.3.1990 to 3.12.1990 again through Sub Treasury, Karunagappally and again from 9.12.1990 to 7/1999 from Sub Treasury, Sasthamcotta. At the time of retirement the complainant sent an application for closure of her provident fund account along with the credit card for the year 1995-96 and a statement containing the details of subscription and withdrawals. The 3rd opp.party forwarded the same to the Deputy Director of Education . They did not consider the same and asked the complainant to file a statement containing the details from 1982-83 to 6/99 and accordingly she furnished the statement which were verified by the opp.parties and expressed satisfaction. As per the above statement it was revealed that the complainant is eligible to get of Rs.1,06,257 from her Provident Fund onward. But as per the payment intimation order dated 18.5.2000 issued by the 1st opp.party she was informed that a sum of Rs.12,837/- alone is there in her account which was received by the complainant with protest.. She has requested the 1st opp.party to rectify the defects in the account and make payment of the entire amount. Since the opp.party did not take any action, the complainant filed the original petition before the High Court and High court directed the 4th opp.party to verify the accounts again and to take a decision with 2 months. However the 4th opp.party without examining the account directed the complainant again to the 1st opp.party. The 1st opp.party out of vengeance to the complainant for filing writ petition informed her that he will verifying the account and necessary intimation will be given after verification. Thereafter the complainant was going regularly to the 1st opp.party and finally as per letter dated 21.5.2002 she was informed that on examination of her account from April 1984 onwards a sum of Rs.10342/- is to be paid and the above sum was also was received under protested. The opp.parties did not give complainant who became a member of Provident Fund from 1.7.1967 the service she was entitled to Due to the inaction of the opp.party much delay was occurred and the complainant suffered mental agony and loss. The opp.parties did not make any attempt to verify the account properly and satisfy the complainant about the genuines of the same. Thereupon, the complainant filed a complaint on 14.7.2004 for which a reply notice was issued. As per the credit card issued by the 4th opp.party for the year 95-96 the complainant was entitled to get Rs.75739/-. Thereafter, up to 7/99 she has remitted a sum of Rs.2,06,769/- Then the total amount in the PF account of the complainant as on7/99 comes to Rs.2,82,508/-, out of which a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- was withdrawn as NRA. From the balance amount of Rs.1,40,508/- she has taken a temporary advance of Rs.34,251/- which was repaid in 7 instalments at the rate of Rs.4,893/-. After deducting Rs.59430/- a sum of Rs.83,078/- isdue to the complainant from her PF account.. But the opp.parties neither repaid the above sum nor satisfy the complainant of the genuinous of the claim. The opp.parties are bound to maintain proper account and repay the Provident Fund amount due to the complainant. Since the opp.parties failed in this regard, their action amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> The opp.parties filed a joint version contending as follows: The complainant has already drawn the entire benefits due to her from the Provident Fund. The Ledger Account Book produced by the opp.parties were audited by one Sri. V. Valsalakumaran,a Chartered Accountant as per the direction of the Forum. The method of accounting taken by the Chartered Accountant is not in accordance with the Provident Fund Rules. The complainant has filed the application for closure of her PF account through the 3rd opp.party which was received by the first opp.party. The above statements which was signed the complainant herself and a sum of Rs.14,247/- is the final balance.. On 18.5.2000 the first opp.party issued slips No.3470/- authorizing Rs.12,837/- being the closure amount. The complainant has approached the Honourable High Court of Kerala alleging that more amount is due to her from her PF account. As per the direction of the High Court an enquiry was conducted by the 1st opp.party in the presence of the complainant and in that enquiry she was satisfied about the closing balance of Rs.9,395/- The account was again recalculated from April 1984 and an amount of Rs.10,342/ was authorized to the complainant on 21.5.2002. The accounting procedure of the KASE PF is of a different nature wherein interest for the opening balance of a particulaqr financial year is first allotted, then interest for monthly balance that is interest for the actual deposit during the year is calculated. By adding the interest for opening balance with interest for monthly balance and by deducting the interest for withdrawal arrives the final interest for the financial year. Then the opening balance deposit and interest are added. From this figure the total withdrawal for the year is deducted and the closing balance will be arrived. This closing balance will be the opening balance for the next financial year. On calculation by the above method no additional amount was found due to the complainant. The report of Chartered Accountant serves no purpose in the calculation of KASE Provident Fund Accounts and no further amount is due to be paid to the complainant. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer.<br /> 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.<br /> 3. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined and Ext. P1 to P6 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 and D2 are marek<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Points:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant’s case is that she was teacher and after retirement applied for the refund of her Provident Fund accumulation, but the opp.party failed to give her the entire PF accumulation despite several requests. As a matter of fact there is no dispute that the complainant was a subscriber to the Employees Provident Fund with A/c. No.8087 and that she joined in service in 1966 and retired from service on 31.3.2000. It goes without saying that an employee or teacher has to join the Provident fund within one year of entry in service and so it is obvious that she started subscribing to Provident Fund from 1967 onwards. The complainant’s case that she subscribed to the PF account till July 99 is also not disputed. According to the complainant though she is entitled to get Rs.83078/- the opp.party did not repay the entire amount. As per order dated 18.5.2000 she was given a sum of Rs.12847/- which she received under protest and her application for the balance amount was rejected. Thereupon she filed OP.31423/2000 before High Court which was allowed and opp.parties were directed to settle her PF account. Accordingly they have calculated the PF account and a sum of Rs.10342/- was allowed as final balance. Dissatisfied with that amount the complainant again filed OP.19036/2002 and High Court as per order dated 30.3.2007 directed the opp.parties to settle her PF account and that opp.party was pending when she filed this complaint before this Forum. The opp.parties have also not disputed payment of Rs.12837/- on 18.5.2000 and thereafter as per the direction in OP.31423/2000 Rs.10342. According to the opp.parties payment of Rs.10342/- was allowed as final balance. The definite contention of the opp.party is that no further amount is due to the complainant from her PF account. The grievance of the complainant is that her provident fund account was not properly maintained by the opp.parties which is obvious from innumerable erasures and overwriting in the ledger A perusal of Ext. D2. extract of the Provident Fund accounts in respect of the complainant would show that the contention cannot be ignored. Ext.P1 PF pass book of the complainant maintained by the Drawing Officer shows that the entries from the year 1983 alone are there in it. The opp.parties have not stated anything with regard to the subscription of the complainant during the year 1967 to 1982.<br /> <br /> <br /> On the requests of the complainant a Chartered Accountant was appointed by this Forum who filed Ext. XI and X2 reports. The reports were seriously assailed by the opp.party on the ground that the same was prepared not in accordance with the Employees Provident Fund Rules. The Chartered Accountant was examined before this Forum as PW.2 and he has categorically stated that Ext. X1 was prepared after verifying the ledger and the account of the complainant produced by the opp.parties. However since PW2 has not worked out the interest in X1. PW.2 was directed to calculate the interest. On the deposit and he has filed Ext. X2 report showings the amount of interest due to the complainant. In cross examination PW.2 has stated that he has worked out the interest as per Circular No.1 ie. PF General [1] 29/06 dated 17.8.92 which is the circular relied upon by the opp.parties also. PW.2 has denied the suggestion of the learned Government Pleader that the calculation is not in accordance with the Employees Provident Fund Rules. The further suggestion that the rate of interest for the subscription and withdrawal are different was also denied by him and stated that both the rate of interest are equal and it is so stated in the circular itself. This circular clearly shows that the rate of interest for the subscription amount and withdrawal amount is the same. Therefore we are of the view that the contention of the opp.parties that Ext. X1-X2 are not prepared in accordance with the EPF Rules cannot be accepted.<br /> <br /> <br /> PW.2 has stated that he has worked out the amount of subscription, arrears of DA for the period from 7.10.1968 to2.7.99, the temporary advances and non refundable advance taken by the complainant during the above period separately in Ext. X1 Schedule one of Ext. X1 relates to the subscription to the PF account which comes to Rs.3,20,992/- schedule 2 contains the recovery by way of DA arrears credited to the Provident Fund which comes to Rs.46366/- Schedule 3 relates to PF temporary advance which comes to Rs.2,02,504/- Schedule 4 relates to the Non-refundable advance taken during the period from 1992-1999 which comes to Rs.1,70,170/-. The opp.parties filed the copy of proceedings of Director of Public Instruction issued as per the direction in O.P.No.19036/02 dated 12.2.2007. As per the statement it is seen that a sum of Rs.1812/- has been paid in excess to the complainant. Ext. X1 statement filed by PW.2 also shows that the complainant has drawn an excess amount of Rs.5350/-. However, Ext. X2 statement showing interest due to the complainant shows that a sum of Rs.75,021 is due to the complainant. We have found earlier that PW.2 has worked out the interest in accordance with the circular No.1 issued by the Director of Public Instructions. Therefore, we are inclined to accept Ext. X2 and hold that a sum Rs.69706/- is due to the complainant from the opp.parties after deducting the excess amount drawn as per Ext. X1 Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At the time of argument the learned Govt. Pleader advanced an argument that the complaint is not maintainable. But no specific pleading regarding maintainability is there in the version. No authority has also been produced in support of that contention . This dispute is with regard to Employees Provident Fund and so we are of the view that this complaint is maintainable before this Forum.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opp.parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.69706/- towards the PF accumulation and interest in her Provident Fund account. The opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,500/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. Anandavally<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Pass book<br /> P2. – PF Credit care [copy]<br /> P3. – PF closure<br /> P4. – Copy of the High court order<br /> P5. – Notice dated 21.5.2002<br /> P6. – Notice dated 4.9.2004<br /> X1. Report issued by Chartered Accountant<br /> X2. - Report<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.parties<br /> DW.1. – Chandrika<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.parties<br /> D1. – Copy of statement<br /> D2. – Copy of ledger.<br /> <br />