DATE OF DISPOSAL: 28.06.2023
PER: SMT. SARITRI PATNAIK, MEMBER(W)
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant was working as Peon in the establishment of the O.P.No.1 with effect from 30.05.1997 in regular basis. The establishment of the O.P. is covered under the provisions of the EPF and M.P.Act, 1952 and accordingly the O.P. was regularly deducting the EPF contributions from the monthly wages for its deposit with the O.P.No.2 i.e. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The O.P.No.2 was issuing the years accounts slips under account No. OR/BAM/522/291. The complainant being innocent of the provisions of law was with the view that the provident funds so deducted shall be remitted by the O.P.No.2. The complainant approached the office of the O.P.No.2 who was advised to submit the Form No,19 and Form No.10-D through the O.P.No.1 after completion of 58 years. Accordingly, the complainant submitted Form No. 19 and Form No. 10-D to the O.P.No.1 for its onward submission to the O.P.No.2 for sanction of Provident Fund dues as well as monthly pension on 03.03.2017. The aforesaid forms were duly accompanied with required documents. Inspite of the petition dated 03.03.2017 there is no action by the O.Ps till date and the complainant having no other sources of living suffers from harassments causing mental agony. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.P.No.1 for forwarding Form No.19 and Form No.10-D to the O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.2 for sanction of Provident Fund dues and sanction monthly pension along with arrears within a given time, for payment of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation by the O.P.No.1 for harassments causing mental agony, Rs.5000/- towards the cost of litigation in the best interest of justice.
3. The O.P.No.1 filed written version. It is contended that from the averment advanced in para 1 of the complaint case, the complainant was working as a peon in the establishment of O.P.No.1. The matters so raised in the complaint petition do not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he is not a consumer under Section 2 (d) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as held by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case between The Deputy General Manager Cpf… versus Kashmir Singh & ors on 13th April 2015. In view of the provisions of the C.P.Act the complaint petition is liable to be rejected as being not maintainable and hence liable to be dismissed in limine.
4. The O.P.No.2 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that his office has not yet received any claim in respect of the complaint either from the complainant or from the establishment where the member was last employed i.e O.P.No.1. As the claim in respect of the complainant has not been received by this office and without claim form this office is unable to settle the EPF and FPF benefits in respect of the complainant. It is to assure that on receipt of claim application with all relevant records as per provision this office will take prompt action and settle the EPF and FPF benefits in respect of the complainant. As such the petition filed by the complainant may please be dismissed in the interest of justice.
5. On the date of hearing of the case, we heard learned counsel for the advocate for complainant and O.P.No. 2 and perused the case record and the materials placed on it. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submitted that after receiving of claim form they are ready to settle the claim immediately. Law is very clear that the employee has to contribute his share from the monthly salary and it is for the employer to deduct the same and remit it to the provident fund organization for maintaining the accounts in an account number allotted to the employee. In case such deductions are not made and the amount is not deposited by the employer, it is equally the responsibility of the Provident Fund Organization to collect the same from the employer and in case of failure, there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. This Commission by relying upon a citation passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner versus Shiv Kumar Joshi A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 331such as “ Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), Section 2 (1)(d), 2(1)(o)-Employees provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (19 of 1952), Section 5- “consumer” and “service”- Employee member of Employees Provident fund scheme is a consumer- and facilities provided by provident fund schemes are “service”… Consumer Protection Act is applicable in the case of the scheme.
In the light of the above decision of law we allow the case.
6. In the result we direct the O.P. No.1 for forwarding Form No.19 and Form No.10 to the O.P.No.2 within one month from the date of receipt of this order. After receipt of the same the O.P.No.2 is hereby directed to ensure payment of all the dues of the complainant within 30 days. This case is disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost and compensation.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 28.06.2023
