BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Tuesday the 9th day of December, 2014
C.C.No.95/2012
Between:
Y.Rama Krishna Reddy,
S/o Chinnapa Reddy,
Branch Manager (retired) Co-Operative Central Bank,
R/o.H.No.1/1549, Gandhi Nagar,
Yemmiganur-518 360,
Kurnool District. …Complainant
-Vs-
The Chief Executive Officer,
The District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited,
H.No.40-1-C, Opp. Government Hospital,
Kurnool-518 002. …OPPOSITE PARTy
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, advocate for complainant and Sri.K.Rama Krishna Rao, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, President)
C.C. No.95/2012
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-
(a)To pay the interest amount on Rs.6,60,672/- from 31-05-2010 to 31-03-2011 at the rate of 12% per annum i.e., Rs.66,067/- and also pay the interest on that amount till the date of realization.
(b)To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of s.30,000/- towards mental agony.
(c)To direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3,000/- towards the costs of litigation.
And
(d)To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the complainant in brief run as follows:- The complainant by name Y.Ramakrishna Reddy worked as Branch Manager at District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited, Pattikonda and retired from service on 31-05-2010. Before taking charge as Branch Manager at Pattikonda, the earlier Branch Manager of Pattikonda branch constructed branch office building and the bills and M.Book were not submitted to the Head Office. The complainant has nothing to do with the said assignment. After taking charge he prepared M.Book with great difficulty and sent it to the Head Office. Though the earlier manager not submitted the bills and M.Book, opposite party has stopped the gratuity of complainant and the same was kept in suspense liability and was paid after enquiry on 31-03-2011. Keeping his gratuity amount in the suspense liability is unlawful and illegal. While paying the same on 31-03-2011 interest was not paid to the complainant by the opposite party.
The complainant made a representation to the opposite party on 20-05-2011 for payment of the interest amount on Rs.6,60,672/- from 31-05-2010 to 31-03-2011. But opposite party did not take any steps for payment of the interest to the complainant. The complainant finally issued a legal notice on 19-05-2012, and the opposite party received the notice but not taken any steps for payment of amount and also not given any reply. It is a clear case of deficiency of service.
- Hence he prays to direct the opposite party to pay interest on Rs.6,60,672/- from 31-05-2010 to 31-03-2011 at 12% per annum i.e., Rs.6,60,672/- and also to pay interest on that amount till the date of realization.
- To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.3,000/- towards costs of this case.
3. On service of notice opposite party engaged counsel and filed written version the contents of which in brief run as follows. The allegation of the complainant that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in paying the gratuity amount to which he is entitled on his retirement and claims made by him in the complaint are not true and correct. They admitted about the employment of the complainant in District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Kurnool, his retirement on 31-05-2010 as Branch Manager of outlet of opposite party at Pattikonda. Earlier his services were utilized at many outlets in District. Each outlet must issue a no objection certificate. The complainant made out a case that he has nothing to do with the questioned construction of the bank building at Pattikonda, because the job was entrusted to his predecessor. Entrusting responsibility of work is not by name wise, but it was designation wise. It is not the case of the complainant, during the tenure of his predecessor entire work was completed. During the tenure of complainant majority of construction work was done, to illustrate during his term revised estimate was settled at meeting and complainant subscribed his signature.
The complainant ought to have been displayed vigilance in supervising the bank building activity which involved scanning of M.Books and measurement books and preparation of bills, payment to contract for all the work processed during the tenure of complainant. His responsibility was mandatory. The complaint did not remain faithful to the mandate of his employment. His negligence gave cause of action for departmental enquiry against the complainant. So payment of gratuity made after disposal of departmental enquiry and on receiving no objection certificates from the outlets where he worked.
Gratuity amount is settled by a committee and realized by LIC of India at Kadapa. The opposite party took every step with all speed to get gratuity amount released from L.I.C., Kadapa. In view of the facts stated above it could be passed on a sight, the departmental enquiry and non receipt of NOC’s came in the way of the opposite party to make payment immediately for which the opposite party is not responsible. Payment of gratuity is a statutory welfare measure to be worked out within the parameters of payment of gratuity act. The complainant did no such exercise. The complainant trespassed before this Forum with untenable claim being non cognizable by this Forum. The claim is also barred by time. There is no deficiency of service in providing service to the complainant who was an employee of this opposite party. Hence he prays to dismiss the CC against the opposite party and to direct the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.10,000/- for opposing this unjust and untenable, malicious complaint.
4. After filing of the written version by the opposite party the matter under went several adjournments. In support of the contention of the complainant, he filed his sworn affidavit by reiterating all the minute details, which he mentioned in his complaint and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The CEO of the opposite party filed sworn affidavit in support of the contention of opposite party. He also reiterated all the minute details of his written version in his sworn affidavit and requested this forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
Ex.A1 Letter of complainant to opposite party dated 20-05-2011. Ex.A2 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 19-05-2012. Ex.A3 Postal Acknowledgement Ex.A4 Photo copy of Credit advice of opposite party dated 31-03-2011.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether this District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case?
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in disbursing gratuity amount to which the complainant is entitled on his retirement after attaining superannuation?
- If so to what amount the complainant is entitled?
6. The counsel for the complainant and the counsel for the opposite party submitted written arguments also in support of their respective contentions.
The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was nothing to do with the construction of the bank office building at Pattikonda. Preparation of bills and M.Book measurements relating to the said construction was not due to fault of complainant as the said construction was completed during the period of his predecessor. For the fault of his predecessor, the opposite party made him scope goat and with held the gratuity amount, to which he was legally entitled on his retirement. On continuous persuasion and request of the complainant they made payment finally on 31-03-2011, that too without interest. Non payment of the gratuity amount within the reasonable period from the date of retirement of the complainant, is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Non payment of interest is another lacunae on the part of opposite party. Hence he prays to allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amounts to the complainant as prayed in the complaint.
In the Written version submitted on behalf of the opposite party it is mentioned entrustment of the construction work of the bank office at Pattikonda to the manager, of the bank at Pattikonda by designation only but not by name. Hence the complainant cannot disown his responsibility in not supervising the work, not preparing the bills and not taking M.Book measurement etc. In fact major portion of the construction of the building had taken place during the period of the complainant himself. Revised estimation work was approved in a meeting at Central Office, in the presence of the complainant and he subscribed his signature to the resolution. For non submission of bills and M.Book measurement, departmental enquiry was order against the complainant. No objection certificates were called for from the all the outlets of opposite party where the complainant worked earlier during his tenure. Due to it gratuity amount of complainant was kept in suspense account. There is neither willful default nor negligence on the part of the opposite party, in payment of gratuity amount to the complainant. The gratuity amount is covered exclusively under payment of the gratuity Act. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The claim made by the complainant is also barred by limitation. Hence they pray to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs as claimed in written version.
7. POINT No.i:- The counsel for complainant represented though the complainant retired on 31-05-2010, the opposite party who was expected to pay the gratuity amount by 30-06-2010 failed to discharge its responsibility. They paid gratuity amount of Rs.6,60,672/- on 31-03-2011 that too without paying the interest. Hence he approached this Forum and filed the complaint. This Forum is competent authority to decide the matter. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in I (2008) CPJ Page 219 (NC). The counsel for the opposite party opposed the petition by stating the dispute relating to payment of gratuity amount is exclusive domine of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Act is self contained. Any dispute in respect of the gratuity shall be decided by Labour Commissioner or the authority appointed by the Government in respect of particular establishment. This Forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant. Hence he prays to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction. In I (2008) CPJ Page 219 (NC) the Honourable National Consumer Dispute Redresal Commission made it clear that any dispute related to provident fund and gratuity amount or nonpayment or part payment, shall be decided by the Forum as they is Consumer and for deficiency of service same is tenable before the Consumer Forum. Hence this Forum is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint relating to non payment of gratuity amount within the stipulated period and the objection raised by the opposite party that this Forum was no jurisdiction is not tenable. Hence we hold this point in favour of the complainant and against opposite party.
8. POINT No.ii:- The appointment of the complainant in the opposite party Bank and his retirement as Branch Manager at Pattikonda on 31-05-2010 after attaining the age of superannuation is admitted fact. As per payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the employer is bound to pay the gratuity amount to the employee within one month after his retirement. But in the instant case the gratuity amount of Rs.6,60,672/- was not paid to the complainant till 31-03-2011 though he was entitled to receive the said amount on or before 30-06-2010. According to opposite party,
1. The complainant not submitted the bills and M.Book particulars to the Head Office in time relating to the construction of the Bank Building at Pattikonda.
2. For want of non receipt of NOC’s, from all the Branches where the complainant worked earlier made this opposite party to cause delay in settling the gratuity of complainant .
9. The complainant stated in his complaint his predecessor not submitted the bills and M.Books details, to the Head Office though entire construction of the building was completed during his period. He further says with great difficulty he secured bills and M.Books details, pertaining to the building which was completed, during the period of his predecessor and he submitted the same to the Head Office. Though he was not responsible for those bills and M.Books details, he made a scope goat and opposite party retained gratuity amount relating to him for more than 9 months and caused a lot of hardship and mental agony. It is stated in the written version, sworn affidavit and written arguments of the opposite party entrustment of construction work of bank building at Pattikonda, is not by name of the Bank Manager but it was by designation. Hence the contention of the complainant that he was not responsible for submitting the bills and M.Books details is not tenable as there was dereliction of duty on the part of the complainant. Departmental enquiry was ordered and after completing of those proceedings after obtaining NOCs from all the outlets where the complainant worked earlier, the gratuity amount to which the complainant was entitled was paid to him. There is no provision for payment of interest on gratuity amount.
Admittedly the construction of the Bank Building was entrusted to a contractor, by the Head Office at Kurnool. The Bank Manager who was working at Pattikonda might have been asked to look after the progress of the construction of the building and its quality. Admittedly the Bank Manager of Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Pattikonda is not a technical expert who can take measurements of the construction work of the building. After all he can visit the building as supervisor and monitor the progress of the work. If really the job of preparation of bills, entries relating to M.Book details work was entrusted to the bank Manager at Pattikonda, nothing prevented the opposite party to produce the said entrustment order or directions as the case may be. It is not known how and why the opposite party is saying, Bank Manager was responsible for the bills and M.Books details of the construction of new building at Pattikonda.
The opposite party new much earlier and in fact they accorded permission to the complainant to retire on 31-05-2010 after attaining the age of superannuation. They also knew that they are bound to pay gratuity amount to which the complainant is entitled within one month from the date of retirement of the complainant on 31-05-2010 after attaining the age of superannuation. When that be the case it is not know why they could not secure the NOC from various Branch Managers, where the complainant worked earlier. It is admitted fact that all the outlets where the complainant worked from the time of his entry, till his retirement are under the controller of opposite party. The opposite party failed to issue at least a direction to the complainant to produce the NOC’s from all the Branches where he worked. Hence the defenses taken by the opposite party that supervision work with regard to construction of building at Pattikonda, preparation of bill and entries of M.Book details were entrusted to the Manager by designation is not established, for the reason, they failed to produce, any such entrustment order in support of their defense. In fact the manager is not the competent person either in preparation of bills or making entries in M.Book. Similarly they also failed to substantiate their defect, for want of receipt of NOCs from, all the branches where the complainant worked earlier as they failed to produce any material to prove that they made any effort in securing those NOCs by addressing letters to the branches or giving any direction to the complainant to produce the same. Hence opposite party miserably failed to substantiate their defense on any count. Under payment of gratuity Act, 1972 the employer is bound to settle the Provident Fund and Gratuity amount to its employee within one month from the date of retirement or the date on which employee is entitled to get those amounts. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in discharging its responsibility in settling gratuity amount to which the complainant was entitled on his retirement.
Thus we hold this point also in favour of the complainant and against opposite party.
10. Point No.iii:- a. While answering the point No.2 we made a clear the opposite party ought to have been paid the gratuity amount to the complainant within one month from the date of his retirement i.e., on or before 30-06-2010. But they failed to discharge their responsibility, to which, they were expected to do, after exercising due diligence. Hence the opposite party is bound to pay the interest on the amount to which the complainant was entitled. The complainant requested to pay interest at 12% per annum. But percent of interest claimed by the complainant is high we feel it is proper to award the interest at 9% on the outstanding amount of Rs.6,60,672/- from 01-07-2010 to 31-03-2011.
b. As the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony because of the conduct of the opposite party, we deem it proper to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards, by way of compensation for the sufferance of mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of this CC.
We direct the opposite party to pay gratuity amount as directed above within one month from today failing which complainant is at liberty to execute this order and realize the fruits of the order according to law.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 9th day of December, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite party : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Letter of complainant to opposite party dated 20-05-2011.
Ex.A2 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 19-05-2012.
Ex.A3 Postal Acknowledgement
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Credit advice of opposite party dated 31-03-2011.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
