Per Mr P N Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Adv. Mr J C Shukla alongwith Adv. Mr Pashine for the appellant. None for the respondent is present.
1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in CC/10/448 decided on 05.02.2011. By the said judgement, the Forum below was pleased to dismiss the complaint and permitted the complainant to approach any other court of Law for getting redressal of his complaint.
2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of complaint original complainant filed this appeal.
3. Upon hearing Adv. Mr J C Shukla with Adv. Mr Pashine for the appellant, we are finding that appeal had filed the consumer complaint against the WCL, alleging that after he was employed as Jr. Executive Trainee, he was given membership of Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme for the first time on 31.05.1974. But from that day itself an amount of monthly Provident Fund contribution was not deducted from his salary by his employer, but it started deducting the same from Nov. 1977. Thereafter, in the year 2009 he retired on reaching the age of superannuation and he was paid arrears of Provident Fund collected alongwith employer’s contribution. His only grievance in the consumer complaint was that he was given the membership of Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme on 31.05.1974. From that day till Nov. 1977 his monthly subscription to the Provident Fund was not deducted from his salary and therefore, for 3 years, he was deprived of benefits of Provident Fund Scheme after retirement and therefore, he filed consumer complaint, alleging deficiency in service on the part of WCL.
4. This complaint was dismissed by the Forum primarily on the ground that the complaint was against the employer filed by the employee and such dispute cannot be entertained by the Forum under Consumer Protection Act. We agree with this finding. But, besides this, we are finding that consumer complaint as filed by the complainant / appellant on 06.08.2010 for whatever claims, was absolutely barred by limitation in as much as non-deduction of Provident Fund contribution related to the period from 31.05.1974 to Nov., 1977. So the cause of action, if any, occurred in Nov. 1977 and from that year till 2010 he did not knock the doors of the Forum. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that the appellant / complainant did not file an application for condonation of delay alongwith his complaint, which he should have filed and therefore, on this ground the consumer complaint as filed by the appellant was absolutely barred by limitation and was liable to be dismissed.
5. In the circumstances, we are finding no substance in appeal. Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. Appeal is summarily rejected.
2. Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 16.07.2011.
