By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant is a retired employee of the opposite party and he was in service from 01/11/1978 to 31/03/2016 and at present he is a pensioner under Kerala State Co-operative pension board.
2. The opposite party was a member in group gratuity life assurance scheme of LIC and the complainant was the beneficiary of the scheme. The scheme was meant to provide gratuity benefit to the employees at the time of their retirement.
3. The complainant retired from the service after 38 years and at the time retirement he was drawing a salary of Rs. 55,659/-. As per the terms the complainant is entitled gratuity benefit of Rs. 12, 20,217/-/- but the opposite party allowed only Rs .10, 00000 as gratuity amount. So the complainant submitted that the opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 2, 20,217/- to the complainant. Though the complainant approached the opposite party several times the opposite party did not make the payment. At last on 17/03/2022 the complainant issued a notice demanding the balance amount of Rs.2, 20,217/- from the opposite party. But there was no response from the opposite party or no payment was made.
4. The complainant alleges the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and dereliction in duty and there by the complainant caused financial loss, mental agony and inconveniences.
5. Hence, the complainant prayed for the payment of Rs. 2, 20,217/- along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
6. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and on receipt of notice the opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint and contended that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complainant is liable to approach the proper authority for the redressal of grievance.
7. The opposite party submitted that the opposite party is a bank formed under the provisions of Kerala co-operative act and allied laws. The act is a self-containing code and as per the act there are legal system to resolve the dispute. The arbitrator, the co-operative arbitration court, etc. are formed as per the act. There is bar under section 100 for the courts to take up the issues and there are provisions to settle the issues under section 69 of the act and payment of gratuity act. Hence the complaint is not maintainable and to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
8. The opposite party contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The LIC of India is as necessary party in the matter. The contributions were paid by the employer to the LIC of India as per scheme and they will grant the gratuity amount when the employees retires. Hence it is prayed to direct to present the complaint before proper forum for the adjudication of dispute.
9. The complainant received the gratuity amount on 05/07/2016 and after 6 years a dispute of this nature is submitted before the Commission and so the claim is barred by limitation as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
10. It is admitted the complainant was employed in the bank and retired from the bank on completion of 58 years. In order to pay the eligible gratuity, employer and LIC joined together and formed a scheme for the same. The scheme is called group gratuity cash accumulation scheme. The employer will pay necessary premium under the scheme and on superannuation of the employee, the amount payable under the gratuity act will be paid by the LIC of India to the employee. As per section 4 A of the act, compulsory insurance is to be obtained in the matter prescribed, for this liability for payment towards gratuity under this act, from the life insurance corporation of India established under the life insurance corporation of India act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or any other prescribed insurer. Hence there same was taken and insurer paid the gratuity payable to the complainant as per law.
11. The opposite party further submitted as per section 4 of the central act gratuity is payable. As per section 4 (3) the amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed 10, 00,000/- rupees at the relevant period. The amount of gratuity is fixed by the statute time to time and when this complainant retired from the service the maximum amount of gratuity payable is Rs. 10, 00,000/-. The same is paid by the LIC of India as per the group gratuity cash accumulation scheme. The amount payable towards gratuity was Rs. 10, 00,000/-and the same was paid in time. The amount of gratuity was paid by the LIC of India by transferring the amount to the complainant’s bank account as requested by him and the matter was concluded on 05/07/2016. Once a statute prescribed the maximum limit it cannot be varied by any other proceedings.
12. The complainant alleged that he is entitled to get Rs. 12, 20,217/- as gratuity is incorrect. It is further denied the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.2, 20,217/- to the complainant is baseless and so the claim is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the opposite party.
13. The opposite party is bound to comply the directions of statutory authorities and same is compiled by the opposite party. The opposite party has no discretionary role and the bank is bound to follow the statutory directions. Complying the directions of statutory authorities is the duty of the bank and the complainant cannot term as it as deficiency in service. The statutory order is binding on the parties.
14. The opposite party submitted that the complainant filed this complaint with distorted facts and with ulterior motive. The complaint is filed to get undue advantage after accepting the amount of gratuity in 2016. Hence the opposite party prayed dismissal of the complaint in toto with cost to the opposite parties. It is submitted there is no deficiency in service and there is no role in the computation of gratuity on the part of opposite party. It is the duty of the LIC of India based on the government orders, policy conditions and settled norms.
15. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents of the complainant marked as Ext. A1. No documents produced by the opposite party. Ext. A1 is copy of application submitted by the complainant before the opposite party to grant Rs. 2, 20,217/- dated 17/03/2022.
16. Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3) Relief and cost?
17. Point NO.1
The opposite party submitted the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and it is time barred one. The opposite party field separate IA 52/2023 challenging the maintainability of the complaint. The said IA 52/2023 was heard in detail and the same was disposed as dismissed on 20/02/2024. The Commission found that the cause of action is continuing one and so the limitation is not applicable in the matter. Moreover, on the basis of various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High court of Kerala, and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Kerala it was held that a complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of service co-operative bank formed under the provisions of Kerala co-operative societies Act and allied laws, hence the first point decided accordingly.
18. Pont No. 2 and 3
It is an admitted case that the complainant was an employee of the opposite party and he was in service of the opposite party from 01/11/1978 to 31/03/2016. As per the payment of gratuity act 1972 the complainant was given gratuity amount of Rs. 10, 00,000/-. The dispute is that the complainant is entitled Rs. 12, 20,217/- and so there is balance of Rs. 2, 20,217/-.
19. The opposite party submitted that the amount of gratuity is fixed by the statue by time to time and when this complainant retired from the service the maximum amount of gratuity payable was Rs. 10,00,000/- and the same was paid by the LIC of India as per the group gratuity cash accumulation scheme. It is further submitted that the opposite party is not having any role in the computation of gratuity, sanctioning of amount, etc. and it is the duty of LIC of India based on the government orders, policy conditions and settled norms.
20. The complainant and the opposite parties submitted various decisions to this point and vehemently argued to substantiate the claims of the parties. The commission have gone through the arguments and the decisions produced by the parties. The complainant produced the decision in National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of the chairman cum managing. … Vs. consumer education research … on 20th march 2014(revision petition No. 3382 of 2013 and the order dated 17/06/2013 in first appeal NO. 872/2010 & 873/2010 to 879/2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, Gujarat, Ahmadabad. The complainant counsel cited the decisions of Kerala High Court in the matter of Chandrasekharan Nair Vs. Kerala state co-operative agricultural & rural development bank limited (2017) (4) KLT 276 (FB) that” the liability to pay gratuity does not get shifted to the insurer by the compulsory insurance and the effect is only that the maturity value of the master policy would go to the the credit of the dues of the employee. Any amount in excess of the gratuity due would also go the employee since the contract of insurance would fall within the ambit of section 4(5) of the central act. Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity of the employees rests on him under section 4(2) of the central Act. The insurer cannot be made liable to pay any amount in excess of the maturity value of the master policy as the aim would be dependent on the premium paid to him. The compulsory insurance under section 4(A) of the central act is only to facilitate the employer to discharge his liability and the premium paid is part of the wages only.
21. The counsel for complainant submitted copy of decision of Honorable High court of Kerala in the matter of WP© No 39246 of 2023 dated 22/12/2023. In that matter petitioner was an employee of the opposite party with service of 29 years. He was eligible for an amount of 2610100/-towards his gratuity. The opposite party the bank paid only 2000000/-rupees to the petitioner as per the provision of gratuity act. The petitioner asserted the view of Honorable High court of Kerala in the matter of Chandrasekaran Nair G and Others Vs Kerala state Co- Operative Agricultural and rural development Bank Ltd and others. Upholding the contention of the petitioner the Honorable Court directed the respondent Bank to disburse the eligible gratuity to the petitioner.
22. Hence it can be seen that there is no merit in the contention of the opposite party that there is no role in the computation of gratuity and it is the duty of LIC of India based on the government orders etc.
23. In this complaint the complainant submitted that he is entitled 12,20,217/- rupees as gratuity and the opposite party disputed and submitted that there is a ceiling of Rs.10,00,000/-as per the statute . But in the light of above findings it can be seen that it is the liability of the employer to pay the entire gratuity amount to the employee. Hence the complainant is entitled the entire gratuity amount of Rs.12, 20,217/- from the opposite party the employer. It can be seen that the LIC is only a facilitator in the matter of settling gratuity amount with respect to an employee and so the contention of non-joinder and the liability of insurance company cannot be accepted. The employer, the opposite party is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2, 20,217/- as prayed in the complainant. The complainant further prayed compensation of Rs. 50,000/-and cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The Commission finds Rs. 25,000/- will be a reasonable amount as compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled Rs. 10,000/-as cost of the proceedings.
24. In the light of above facts circumstances the complaint stands allowed as follows:-
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2, 20,217/- (Rupees two lakh twenty thousand two hundred and seventeen only) to the complainant as balance amount of gratuity as prayed in the complaint.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled interest for the above said entire amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order to till date of payment.
Dated this 24th day of October, 2024.
Mohandasan. K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1
Ext.A1: Copy of application submitted by the complainant before the opposite party to
grant Rs. 2, 20,217/- dated 17/03/2022.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan. K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
