This C.D coming on before us for final hearing, on 4-12-2007 in the presence of Sri.V.Rama Rao, Advocate for Complainant, and in the presence of Government Pleader for opposite party No-1 Sri.K.Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, Member )
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under;
The complainant was a workman under the employment of opposite party No-3 and worked in various capacities since his appointment on 10-1-1959 to retirement on 10-1-1995. During the tenure of employment of 36 years, his employer opposite party No-2 & 3 have deducted amounts from the salary every month towards Provident Fund, Insurance, Family Benefits Fund etc. The amounts deducted towards provident fund have to be sent to the opposite party No-1 after adding equal contribution of the employer and the said amount carries interest and the total accumulated amount to be paid to the complainant at the time of his retirement.
3. The opposite parties No-2 & 3 have recovered the P.F. contribution of the complainant into various accounts viz.,H/43519,43522, 1943, 1945, 143, 2943, 43512, 43219, 1247,1949, 13243, 43510,43567 and 043036 which is evident from the pay slips. The complainant when observed this irregularity represented to the opposite parties through union on 12-9-1990 and 30-01-1991. In response to the letters, the Assistant Commissioner-II on 30-11-90 sent a letter to the opposite party No-1 to update the C.M.P.F. account and a copy of the letter was marked to the complainant. The Assistant Commissioner Gr-II again on 9-1-1992 reminded the opposite parties to update the P.F. account. Though there are such representations from the complainant the opposite parties did nothing and rejected the grievance of the complainant.
4. The opposite parties have not even correctly effected the deductions towards P.F. and that way also the complainant was put to enormous loss. For example the total salary of the complainant for the months of April 1992 and May 1992 are Rs.3439.21 and 3053.79. The deduction recovery should be 10% of total salary and thus it would have to be Rs.343 and 305/-. The opposite party 2 & 3 have recovered Rs.288 and 277 only. If this was correctly deducted there would have equal contribution from the employer and the total amount would be paid with interest.
5. The opposite parties have not recovered the P.F. amounts into genuine and correct account of the complainant the complainant at the time of retirement received lesser amount towards P.F. The amount of P.F. Rs.1,90,913/- at any rate is very low when compared to his long service of 36 years.
6. That the amount of P.F. was also not paid after the retirement of the complainant and thus lost Rupees nearly 20,000/- towards interest.
7. The complainant approached and filed L.S.A.No.82/2003 before the Taluka Legal Services Authority, Kothagudem. The said authority by its docket order dated 20-11-2004 advised to approach Civil Court. Hence this complaint.
8. Hence it is prayed to Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards P.F. and Rs.20,00/- towards interest on P.F. amount of Rs.1,90,913/- paid in February, 1996. Though he is entitled in January, 1995 with 12 % interest from the date of entitlement of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation.
9. That the complainant filed his affidavit along with the following documents (i)copy of letter addressed to the opposite party No-1 by the complainant dated 5-5-91 with acknowledgement, dated 10-5-91.(ii) Copy of representation of Union Secretary to the Manager, Yellandu Collieries, dated 12-9-90.(iii) Copy of representation of Union Secretary, dated 30-1-91 to the Regional Commissioner, Kothagudem, dated 30-1-91.(iv) Copy of letter of Assistant Commissioner -II to the office of opposite party No-1, dated 30-11-90 (v) Copy of letter of Assistant Commissioner Gr-II to the Controller of Accounts S.C.Co.Ltd., Yellandu, dated 9-1-1992.(vi) Certified copy of Docket Order of Mandal Legal Services Committee, Kothagudem, dated 20-11-2004.(vii) Certified copy of counter by opposite party No-1, dated 6-12-2003(viii) Certified copy of counter filed for Respondent No.2 & 3, dated 6-12-2003 (ix)Regional pay slip of complainant 4 in Number(x) Intimation letter that cheque for P.F. amount for sent,dated 28-8-95
10. The opposite party No-1 field following counter :
That the complainant was a member of the CMPF, who retired from the service of the SCCL, during January,95. His PF claim was submitted to the office of this opposite party in April, 95 duly forwarded by the controller of Accounts, SCCL, Yellandu. On receipt of the claim for refund, his ledger account was checked and the claim was processed and settled for Rs.1,90,913/- and paid to the complainanat during August, 95.
That as per the statutory provisions, the employer i.e., the management of SCCL has to deduct the PF from the wages of the members at the prescribed rate and to deposit the amount to CMPF with matching contributions every month. The details of total contributions of members as well as employer for the entire financial year will be submitted to this respondents office in a statement called from YY every year by month wise PF so deducted during the financial year will be issued to the members through a statement of form VV by the employer. The pass books are issued to the unit/ colliery of SCCL to show the account of the members concerned and get their acknowledgement there in having verified the account. In case there is any discrepancy in the account the colliery concerned will get it rectified. The CMPF account number of the complainant is H/43036, but for some periods his account number shown in the VV statements by the company erroneously as H/43519 . Eventhen as per the above procedure the account number was corrected in the VV statement and the contributions were credited to his correct account number 43036 against the complainants name. As such there is no truth in his allegation that he received lesser amount due to the quoting of different account numbers.
The accounts as well as the settled claims are regularly audited by the internal audit as well as statutory (AG) auditors. As such the allegation of the complainant that the amount of his PF was not also paid immediately after his retirement as a result he lost Rs.20,000=00 towards interest, is also not correct and baseless.
The claim of damage of Rs.2,00,000/- is also not based on facts and figures because as per the contributions the complainant was entitled for Rs.1,90,913=00 with interest up to June, 1995 and the same was paid to the complainant on 31-07-1995.
That the Hon’ble District Forum has no jurisdiction over the complaint relating to the Provident Fund as per the Judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission in ROSHAN LAL AHUJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (1995) 3 CTJ585.
Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. Opposite party No-2 & 3 filed the following counter:
That the opposite party No-1&2 reiterate the facts of the opposite party No-1.
The complainant was paid the entire amount of CMPF in the month of August, 1995, the claim of the complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation.
That this matter relates to PF. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
12. The complainant filed his written arguments.
13. The opposite party No-1 filed a memo to treat the counter of opposite party No-1 as his written arguments. The opposite party No-2 & 3 also filed a memo stating that the counter of opposite party No-2 &3 may be treated as their written arguments.
14. The points for consideration:
- Whether this complaint is filed within period of limitation.
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled as prayed for?
P O I N T:
It is the main contention of the complainant that the opposite parties recovered the PF contribution of the complainant into various accounts. This fact was intimated to the opposite parties but there was no response from the opposite parties. Due to this the complainant lost Rs.20,000/- interest and also entitled Rs.2,00,000/- PF amount andRs.1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation.
15. For this the contention of the opposite parties is that this complainant is barred by limitation as the complainant received the PF amount on 28-8-1995.
16. We have perused the all the documents filed by the complainant. Admittedly, all those documents are related to the years 1980-90, 91,92 95 etc. From these years even there was no correspondence filed by the complainant to the opposite parties. The complainant also field a petition before Mandal Legal Services Committee, kothagudem and the said committee vide its Docket Order, dated 20-11-04 advised the petitioner to approach Civil Court . At least from this day onwards this complaint is not filed within the period of limitation as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
17. Hence, we are of the opinion that this complaint is barred by limitation without going to the other aspects of the case.
18. This complaint is liable for dismissal. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed as the complaint is barred by limitation. No costs.
19. In the result the C.D. is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed her, Corrected and pronounced by us, in the Open Forum on this 14th day of December, 2007.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
Complainant Opposite parties
Nil Nil
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Complainant
Nil Opposite parties
Nil
President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
