BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHARWAD.
COMPLAINT NO.332/2015
Date: 22nd day of November, 2016
P r e s e n t:
Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar, B.A., LLB : President
Sri.B.S.Keri, B.A., LLB (Spl) : Member
JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY
SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:
The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opponent (herein after referred in short as OP) u/s 12 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs.
2. The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant is permanent resident of Kusugal, Hubli. The complainant was working as an Assistant at M/s Bhoruka Textile Niyamita Suthur, Dharwad in a year 1981 to 1989. On 14.06.1989 he has been terminated from the work, during his service he had a PF account No KN/HBL/10094/795.
3. Further complainant submits that after termination he challenged this in labor court dharwad bearing case no 17/2008. The said case was allowed and passed the order that the complainant is entitled for back wages taking continuity of servicer till consolation settlement further complainant submits that he approached OP No 1 often for PF amount but OP No1 not responded properly by which the complainant had faced mental torture after that complainant issued a legal notice on 31.05.2014 the same has been served to OP No 1 and as per the order of the labour court. The complainant is the consumer to the OPs, Hence OPs made deficiency in service and prayed to order to pay a sum of Rs 7,05,720/- (Seven lakh five thousand seven hundred and twenty rupees)in total.
4. The predecessor on seat registered the Complaint and notice were issued as such OP appeared through personally and filed their Written Version. Advocate for the complainant filed IA for impleading and deleting the Ops, IA allowed as such OP no2 and 3 are deleted and OP no 1, 4 and 5 are continued as a party to the proceedings. OP no 4 and 5 remained absent.
Brief facts of the Written Version of OP No1:
The OP No1 submits that the complainant is the employee of the above said company and they have received the PF amount from the company till 1989 to 1990 and submits that the case is barred by limitation.
5. Further, The OP No.1 submits that the said complainant account No had been open on 01.05.1987 with code no GB/HBL/10094/795. And further in his defence of OP submits that this OP is not party to the proceedings of labour court and denied that complainant is not eligible for back wages. As per the complainant grievance OP No1 wrote a letter on 03.10.2012 to employee along with employee’s letters enclosed and replied the legal notice of the complainant to claim PF amount claim should be submitted in a prescribe claim form. But the complainant failed to submit the claim form till date not claim the same. Hence OP No1 has not made any deficiency in his service and prayed to dismiss the complaint against OP No1 with cost.
6. In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant filed his affidavit and photo copies of the document produced as C-1 to C-11, the document are as follows:
1. C-1 to C-4 is the letters of correspondence.
2. C-5 Photo copy of ID Card.
3. C-6 Photo copy of claim form pages 5 in number.
4. C-7 Photo copy of Application pages 5 in number.
5. C-8 Photo copy of passbook account number.
6. C-9 Photo copy of Order of labour court.
7. C-10 Labour contractor pass.
8. C-11 Photo copy of letter from OP No1 to
complainant.
On the other hand, Op No1 filed chief affidavit of one Mohammed Majaz, Asst Provident fund commissioner (Legal) and the following documents had been filed on behalf of Op No1.
- Photo copy of letter written by the OP No1 to Bhoruka Textiles.
- Photo copy of reply notice.
On perusal of above documents and arguments heard on both the sides, we conceived that the dispute is regarding the PF amount, complainant claim a sum of Rs 7,05,720/-. This being the pleadings, the points arises before us for adjudication is as follows:
1. | Whether the Complainant filed by the complainant is barred by limitation? |
2. | What Order? |
Our Answer to the above Points are:-
Point No.1 – Affirmative,
Point No.2 - As per the final order.
7. On consideration of pleading, objection, evidence, documents and arguments of the parties, we answer the above points as under:
R E A S O N S
8. POINT NO.1: The complainant filed this complaint for claiming the PF amount and back wages from OP No1 and other reliefs.
On the other hand OP No1 enumerated that the complaint is barred by limitations and other defense has been taken that he is ready to pay the PF amount received by him till 1989 to 1990 but after that the OP No1 not received the PF amount from the employers of the complainant.
9. The record produced by the complainant and OP revels that the dispute has arisen in the year 1989, but as per the record produced by the complainant C-9 i.e. Order of the Hon’ble labour court itself speak that the order was passed in the year 2010, since then the complainant had not shown any interest for claiming his rights as per the order of the Hon’ble labour court. Even after the order of the labour court complainant took more than 3 years to approach this forum, complainant issued the notice to OP no1, on 24.08.2012. As per document no C-3 and another legal notice dated 31.05.2014 which has been produced by the OP No1 as document No1 in this notice the but another notice is not produced before the forum taking this in consideration of above mention date cause of action arises in the year 2012 itself, but any how complainant mentioned in the complaint that the cause of action arises from the date of issuance of 2nd notice i.e. Dtd.31.05.2014. But here we observe that if we considered that the as cause of action arises in the year 2014 the complainant is not entitled to file this complaint since it is barred by limitation more over the issuance of legal notice is not a shield for the complainant to extent the limitation to file the complaint as such we relied on the citation sited below.
Janasatta Sahakari Awas Samithi Ltd. Vs. Kone Elevators India Pvt. Ltd., & Others 2016 (1) CPJ 190 NC. Accrual of cause of action- merely sending a notice does not constitute a cause of action nor does it extend period of limitation- complaint time barred; 2013 (4) CPR 6 NC – V.K.Appliances vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., - limitation – letters, notices do not extend time of
Hence we answer point no 1 in affirmative
10. POINT No.2: For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass following:
ORDER
- This Complaint is dismissed.
- No order on cost.
- Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 22nd day of November 2016)
