IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM.
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S., President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
CC No.254/18(filed on 27/11/18)
Complainant : T.V. Joseph,
S/o Joseph,
Thekkekara House,
Vattukulam PO,
Kannakkary village,
Meenachil, Kottayam.
(Adv. Joshy Jacob)
Vs.
Opposite party : 1) The Meenachil Rubber Marketing &
Processing Co-Operative Society Ltd
No.K.118 Repted by
Administrator.Pala PO-686575.
2) The Administrator,
The Meenachil Rubber Marketing &
Processing Co-Operative Society Ltd
No.K.118, Pala PO-686575
(Ops Adv. Bobby John K.A)
.
ORDER
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant was an employee of the 1st opposite party. Complainant retired from service on 30-06-2015. The complainant had joined the Employees Benefit Fund by remitting 4% of the salary every month towards the Benefit Fund. The 1st opposite party assured the complainant that at the time of retirement an amount equal to 25 times the salary of the last month will be given from the Employees Benefit Fund. The last month salary of the complainant was Rs.32,453/-. As per the conditions of the Employees Benefit Fund, the complainant is eligible for 25 x 32453 = 8,11,325/- rupees. The act of the opposite parties in not disbursing the Employees Benefit Fund to the complainant in time is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complaint is filed for getting the Employees Benefit Fund along with interest from 30-5-2015 and other reliefs. Hence the complaint.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed their version.
As per the version of the opposite parties:
The complaint is not maintainable and the forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for retirement Benefit of a Public servant.
The opposite parties totally denied the allegation of the complainant and stated that huge amounts from various institutions are due to the opposite party. Opposite party is facing serious financial problems. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opposite party. No cause of action for the complaint has arisen on any dates stated in the complaint.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. The opposite parties appeared before the commission and defended their case.
On going through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and version of the opposite parties and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs and costs?
Point No.1
As per the version of the opposite parties this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for retirement benefit of a public servant. Learned counsel for the opposite parties produced two judgements.
1.1998 SCC online All 784, (1999)35 ALR 127:
Allahabad High Court in Rajesh Kumar and others Vs The District Consumer Protection Forum, Sonebhadra and another in C.M.W.P No.13219 of 1997
In this case the prayer is that Respondent No.2 should be paid gratuity and arrears of salary. Hon’ble court held that in our opinion this does not come within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. As regards, to gratuity, respondent No.2 should have approached authority concerned under the payment of Gratuity Act and as regards to salary, he should approach the appropriate forum.
II.2003-2-L.W 62
High Court of Judicature at Madras writ petition No.8122/2002, and W.P.M.P.No.11108/2002 and M.V. M.P No. 445/2002
Complainant before the District Forum by employees of the Indian Bank regarding the pensionary benefits entitlement to the employees under voluntary Retirement Scheme(VRS) Hon’ble High Court held that it is not in dispute that the respondent was a government servant and therefore he is bound by the service conditions and the state was rendering the services free of charge to the contenting respondents under these circumstances, the Government servant has been excluded from the purview of the Act, to claim damages against the state under the Act.
The complainant is with regard to the Employees Benefit Fund, which was operated by the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties does not have a case that the contribution of the complainant towards the employees benefit fund had been remitted to Employees Provident Fund or any other Scheme of the Government. The complainant had made a payment of 4% of his monthly salary to the opposite party being the contribution to the Employees Benefit Fund. The opposite party is bound to provide the service offered to the complainant. The service of the Employees Benefit fund cannot be treated as part of salary or gratuity. It is clear that the complainant had made a consideration to the opposite party for which the opposite party is liable to give their promised service. Hence we are of the opinion that the complaint is maintainable as per the Consumer Protection Act.
Point No.2 & 3
On going through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant, version of the opposite parties and evidence on record, it is clear as per Ext.A1 that the complainant had remitted a contribution of Rs.1298/- towards Employees Benefit Fund when the total salary was Rs.32,453.00. The complainant was eligible for getting 25 times of the last month salary, which is 25 x 32453 = 8,11,325 at the time of retirement on 30-6-2015 from the Employees Benefit Fund. The opposite parties failed to give the claim amount from the Employees Benefit Fund to the complainant on the retirement of the complainant. The act of the first opposite party by not giving the claim amount from the Employees Benefit fund to the complainant at the time of retirement is clearly deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
Hence we allow the complaint and pass the following orders.
- The 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.8,11,325/- to the complainant being the claim amount from the Employees Benefit Fund.
- The complainant is allowed Rs.2000/- being the cost of this litigation.
The Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which the award amount will carry an annual interest of 6% from the date of this order.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 26th day of March, 2021.
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1-Salary Slip dated January 2015
A2-Series of Receipt and copy of letters(3 Nos)
A3-Series of Letters(2 Nos)
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
