Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/83/2020

Baljinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. Chandok & Anuradha

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/83/2020
Date of Institution	:	14.2.2020
Date of Decision	:	24.4.2023

 

Baljinder Kaur wife of late Sh. Davinder Singh R/o H. No.71, VPO Kundi, Sector 20, Panchkula,  Haryana.

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, SCO 4-7, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.
2. The Manager, Lake Sports Complex, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
3. Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh.

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. A.K. Chondok, counsel for complainant. Sh. Raj Kumar Syal counsel for  OP No.1 Ms. Shubreet  kaur Saron, counsel for OP No.2. Sh. Aman Singla, counsel for OP No.3.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

1.   Briefly stated that husband of the complainant Mr. Davinder Singh was working as Chowkidar in the establishment of OP No.2 and was in service till his death on 3.1.2016. The late husband of the complainant fell sick and remained hospitalized in Fortis Hospital Mohali and Alchemist, Panchkula and expired on 3.1.2016.  A sum of Rs.8,24,925/- was spent on his treatment. It is pleaded that  the husband of the complainant being an employee of OP No.2 was a member of EPF & MP Act, 1952 and other laws & and as such entitled for various benefits of schemes under labour laws such as EPF, ESI, Gratuity etc. and the complainant is entitled to get benefit of these schemes after death of her husband.  It is stated that since an amount of Rs.8,24,925/- was spent on the treatment of the husband of the complainant therefore, the complainant claimed the same from OP No.2, which was denied by OP No.2 vide letter dated 5.8.2016.  The complainant also applied on prescribed proforma under the EPF &  MP Act, 1952 claiming benefits  as PF/EPS/EDLI but are still unpaid except a sum of Rs.52,427/- settled and released  in the bank account of complainant by the OP No.1. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed the complainant sent legal notice dated 6.8.2019, which was replied by OP No.2 stating that  PF claim  for Rs.52,427/-  has been settled and pension claim was processed and forwarded to the pension branch for doing the needful but till date no further reply was received from OP No.1. The complainant thereafter further took up the matter with all the Ops but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed

1. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that the answering OP has already released the provident fund and pension to the family of the member as per law. It is averred that OP No.2 has submitted the complete claim forms  with answering OP No.1 on 21.8.2019 and the answering OP No.1 settled the PF account for Rs.52,427/- and credited the same in the account of the complainant on 26.8.2019.. It is further averred that a pension of Rs.2261/- per month has been fixed for complaint and Rs.565/- per month  to the daughter of the complainant w.e.f. 4.1.2016. It is further averred that the complainant is not entitled for EDLI benefit as the member was not on roll at the time of death as in the statutory Form 10 in column No.5 the date of leaving service has been mentioned as 25.8.2015 whereas the husband of the complainant died on 3.1.2016 meaning thereby on the date of death he was not on rolls of service..  All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
2. Opposite party No.2 in its reply  while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the husband of the complainant was not a regular employee but he was working as a daily wager. However, he was entitled to the benefit of provident fund and other pension claims, which lie in the domain of OP No.1 and have duly been settled. It is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering  OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply stated that the husband of complainant is not an IP and neither the complainant herself and hence, not covered under ESIC Act. It is stated that Civil Writ Petition No. 1598 of 2009 decided on 23.1.2012 and upheld in LPA No.1178 of 2012 decided on 20.11.2013, it has been categorically held that the ESI Corporation has no right to  recover contribution from Chandigarh sports council, Chandigarh meaning thereby the ESI Act is not applicable to Lake Sports Club and hence, there is no question of payment of any kind to complainant by OP No.3. Denying all other allegations levelled in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that after death of her husband who was employee of  OP No.2, the OPs had not paid all the legitimate dues payable to her  under the provisions of various acts and rules made thereunder.
8. Coming to first relief as prayed for by the complainant, it is observed that  OP No.1 received the complete claim form on 21.8.2019 and claim was settled on 26.8.2019. The PPO No. was also issued by OP No.1. hence, both the payments with regard to PPF & pension have already been settled.
9. Regarding the second relief claimed by the complainant, we are of the view that her late husband was not a regular employee and EDLI scheme is not applicable to contractual or daily wagers. The complainant has not adduced any evidence that her late husband was a regular employee.
10. Regarding the claim of the complainant to reimburse hospital charges, we have gone through the Annexure OP-2/1,  OP-3/3, and  OP-3/4 and are of the opinion that ESI contribution cannot be recovered from OP No.2, as such the ESI Act is not applicable in the present case,  As far as payment of gratuity is concerned, it is observed that  OP No.2 had paid the same to the complainant on 12.8.2021, whereas the complainant died on 3.1.2016 meaning thereby they paid  the same after a delay of  approximately  five and half years which itself  shows the negligence and deficiency in rendering service to the complainant on the part of OP no.2, though all the necessary dues were paid to the complainant but after considerable delay.  
11. It is also observed from the documents that the complainant had submitted the required documents regarding PF and pension to OP no.2 on 25.5.2018, whereas OP No.1 received  the same from OP No.2 on 21.8.2019 and processed the same on 26.8.2019, despite the fact that the husband of the complainant died on 3.1.2016 but the benefit was received by the complainant only on 26.8.2019, hence, the OP No.2 is also deficient in providing service as it failed to process the submission of document expeditiously to OP No.1 and the same caused lot of harassment to the complainant.  
12. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint partly succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.2 is directed as under:-

1. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
2. to pay Rs.7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

13.      This order be complied with by the OP No.2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
14. Complaint qua OPs No.1&3 stands dismissed.  
15.   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member