West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/77/2015

Sri Anil Kumar Ghorai - Complainant(s)

Versus

The B.M.O.H. Deypara(Chandra) B.P.H.C. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Dec 2015

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

&

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

 

Complaint Case No.77/2015

                                                       

       Sri Anil Kumar Ghorai………………..….……Complainant.

Versus

1)The B.M.O.H. Deypara (Chandra) B.P.H.C;

 2)The Asst. Chief Medical Officer of Health Sadar;

                   3)The C.M.O.H………………………….…..…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant : Mr. Somasish Ponda, Advocate.

              For the O.P.                : Mr. Sukumar Parya, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -29/12/2015

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President - Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is an employee of Deypara (Chandra) B.P.H.C. and he works there as a sweeper.  He is the holder of G.P.F. account being no.B.M.O.H./CHANDRA/50 and he regularly paid the premium in his G.P.F. account.  Due to illness of his wife, the complainant applied for non-refundable loan of Rs.20,000/- from his G.P.F. account.  But in spite of repeated request before the authority, his loan was not sanctioned.  On 13/03/2015, the office of C.M.O.H. sent a letter to the complaint as well as to B.M.O.H., Deypara (Chandra) B.P.H.C. & Asst. C.M.O.H, Paschim Medinipur with an instruction to sanction  G.P.F. loan to the complainant but the aforesaid authority did not take care of it due to some unknown reason.  Hence the complaint, directing the opposite party to sanction non-refundable  G.P.F. loan of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

Contd………………..P/2

 

 

 

 

( 2 )

     Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filing a joint written statement. Denying and disputing the case of the complaint, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint before this forum as there is no relationship between the complainant and the opposite party as consumer and trader and the G.P.F. dispute cannot come under the jurisdiction of this Forum and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  It is also submitted by the opposite parties that the complainant made an application for non-refundable G.P.F advance before the opposite party no.1 on 21/01/2015 without submitting prescribed application form no.2639.  Opposite party no.1 requested the complainant to produce medical certificate and last G.P.F balance statement but  he did not produce those papers.  The opposite party no. 1 thereafter issued a letter vide  memo no.63 dated 18/04/2015 and requested the complainant to submit all necessary documents for consideration of his payment but he refused to do so and has filed a false complaint before this Forum for which the petition of complaint is liable to be rejected.                                     

 

                                                                               Point for decision

                                                           Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?

 

                                                                                             Decision with reasons

       In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite party adduced any evidence but they have filed some documents in support of their case. 

     Admittedly, the complainant is an employee under the opposite party and he submitted an application for getting G.P.F. loan of Rs.20,000/-.  According to the complainant, in spite of that, the opposite party did not sanction the said non-refundable loan from his G.P.F. account.  On the other hand,  it is the case of the opposite party that the complainant did not apply for the said loan in prescribed form no.2639 and in spite of instruction vide memo no.63 dated 18/04/2015, the complainant did not submit necessary documents for consideration of his payment.  Complainant produced no scrap of papers to show that he submitted his application in prescribed form along with all necessary documents like medical certificate etc.  From the copy of application, submitted by the complainant before the D.M.O.H., we find that he has submitted the said application in plain paper but there is nothing to show that as per rules and regulations, he submitted the said application in prescribed form.  Unless and until the application for getting   non-refundable G.P.F. loan is submitted in prescribed form along with last G.P.F. slip and

Contd………………..P/2

 

 

 

 

 

( 3 )

all other relevant papers, a loan cannot be considered and therefore we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The petition of complaint is therefore liable to be rejected.  The complainant is at liberty to submit necessary application in prescribed form for getting G.P.F. loan before the opposite party.

 

                                                   Hence, it is,

                                                                   Ordered,

                                                                                 that the complaint case no.77/2015 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

 

             Dictated & Corrected by me

                                

                           President                                  Member                                    President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur