Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present :Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday 14th day of May, 2004
C.D.No.06 /2004
Sri.T.S.Md.Akbar,
S/o Shaik Peeran Saheb,
Door No.11-14,
Osmania College Road.
Kurnool District. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri S.Iqbal Ahmed.
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director,
Sree Rayalseems Paper Mills Limited,
Gondiparla,
Kurnool.
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Office of the Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Sub Regional Office,
1-30, Railway Station Road,
Cuddapah. . . . Opposite parties.
O R DE R
1. This Consumer Dispute case of the complaint is under Section12 of the C.P. Act seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay provident fund amount with interest at 24% from the date of sanction till the date of the realization, costs of the complaint and other reliefs which the complainant may be entitled in the exigencies of the case demand.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that while he was working as Office Assistant Gr.II in Personal Department of opposite party no.1 he was a subscriber to the provident Fund vide Account No.AP/4365/1384 PP.No.AP/CDP/10452 and the necessary y monthly contributions were regularly made from his salary also along with the contribution of his Employer. Consequent to this retirement and on submission of all the relevant document he was paid monthly pension of Rs.325/- with effect from 01-07-2002 and towards pension arrears and without sending any account statement from 1978 to 2002 he was an amount of Rs.983/- only by the opposite party No.2 vide cheque No.226547 dated 05-11-2003 and the suppression of his account statement amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2 and hence the opposite parties are liable to make good of the reliefs claimed.
3. Inpursuance of the receipt of the notice of this complaint from this Forum while the opposite party no1 remained exparte. The opposite party No.2 contested the matter by filing its written version alleging no deficiency of service on his part and seeking the dismissal of the complaint alleging the amount of Rs.983/- due to the complainant was paid as per the details of the statement and the details of the contribution and the withdrawals enclosed to the written version.
4. In substantiation of the complaint averments while the complaint’s side has relied upon the documentary evidence in Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complaint averments, the contesting the opposite party No.2 besides filing accounts statement of the complainant containing the particulars of the contributions of the withdrawals and the due net amount on the date of the settlement filed his sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version averments.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2 and his entitleness for the reliefs claimed.
6. The complainant except seeking direction on the opposite party No.2 for the payment of his P.F. amount with interest at 24% till realization does neither furnish any cogent material as to the actual amount which he is claiming as due from the opposite party No.2 or furnishes any such cogent material by which it could be worked out. The complainant does not even say what is the amount that was contributed to provident fund periodically from his salary and the amount of contribution from his employer during 1978 to 1990 and from 1995 till his retirement on 01-07-2002 nor his legal notice in Ex.A3 furnishes any such material particulars by which his grievances act at rest. Nor he produces any such cogent material by which the period of contribution and the premium of the contribution in the said period could be ascertained for computation of the amount of his claim.
7. While such is so with the complainant the statement of the P.F. amount enclosed by the opposite party No.2 to the written version as to the particulars of the P.F. amount of the complainant is showing an outstanding balance of Rs.983/- only by the date of the settlement of the complainant’s claim and the letter of the opposite party No.2 dated 10-11-2003 addressed to the complainant and averments of the para No.5 of the sworn affidavit of the complainant and the averments of the para No.4 of the complaint of the complainant admits to the receipts of the said balance amount of Rs.983/- by the complainant.
8. In the absence of the complainant furnishing each years subscriber’s annual statement as in Ex.A2 and the pay slip of the entire period of his claim as in Ex.A1 the bonafidies of the statement of the particulars of P.F. account of the complainant furnished by the opposite party No.2 in this case cannot be doubted. When such is the matter and the problem of the complainant being not in a position to be answered at the deficient conduct as wanting of the required material from the complainant’s side itself there appears neither any bonafidies in the alleged cause of action of the complainant nor any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2 as alleged and there by the complainant remains entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.
9. Consequently, in the result of the above discussion for want of merit and force in the case of the complainant the complaint is dismissed and in the circumstances each party.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open
Court this the 14th day of May, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :- Nil For the opposite party :- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Bunch of Four pay slips of the complainant issued by opposite party No.1
Ex.A2 Provident Fund amount ship of the complainant for year 1987 to 1988.
Ex.A3 Legal Notice date d 18-10-2003 issued by complainants counsel to opposite party No.2.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- NIL
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
