Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/330/2014

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

V. KANNAN - Opp.Party(s)

S. SRINIVASAN

31 Oct 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble THIRU  JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  :     PRESIDENT

                       THIRU R VENKATESAPERUMAL    :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 330 of 2014

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.225 of 2012 dated 14.03.2014 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Chennnai (North).

 

Monday, the 31^st day of October 2022

The Regional Provident

   Fund Commissioner

Tamilnadu and Pondicherry

Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation

37, Royapettah High Road

Chennai – 600 014.                                     .. Appellant/

2^nd Opposite Party

 

- Vs –

1.  V. Kannan

     S/o. Venkateswaran  

     No.45, I Main Road

     Balaji Nagar, Anakaputhur

     Chennai – 600 070                                ..1^st Respondent/

 Complainant

 

2.  The Kancheepuram District

     Consumer Co-operative Whole

             Sale Store Ltd.

     (Reg. D.No.G-1113)

     185, Prakasam Salai

     Chennai – 600 108.                               ..  2^nd Respondent/

                                                                         1^st Opposite Party  

  

    Counsel for Appellant /2^nd Opposite party       :  M/s.K. Prabhakar

    Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/Complainant   :  Authorised Person

    Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent/

                                1^st Opposite party              :  M/s. R. Venu

                                                               

                This appeal came before us for final hearing on 21.07.2022 and on hearing the arguments of Appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

 

                This appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ 2^nd Opposite Party under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 14.03.2014 in C.C. No.225 of 2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), allowing the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent/ complainant.

 

        2.  The appellant is the 2^nd Opposite Party, the                1^st respondent is the complainant and the 2^nd respondent is the        1^st opposite party/Employer of the complainant.  For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their ranking before the District Forum.  

 

            3.   The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that the 1^st opposite party is the employer of the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party had collected money under provident fund scheme and had deposited the same with the 2^nd opposite party, in the Complainant’s PF Account No.TN/2859/551 for the period from 14.03.1984 to 29.05.2002.  Subsequent to his retirement, the complainant had submitted Form No.19 and Form No.10D on 15.03.2011, claiming for payment of his provident fund and also pension, for which he is entitled under the scheme.  The 2^nd opposite party had given acknowledgment slip No.2859/551 dated 15.03.2011.  But, till the date of filing the complaint, he has not been paid with the provident fund amount.  Similarly, he has not been paid any pension under the scheme, though he is eligible for the same.  Hence, the complainant submitted an application on 17.09.2011, under RTI Act, to the 1^st opposite party and to furnish the particulars with regard to the payment of his contribution towards provident fund and pension.  The 1^st opposite party sent a reply dated 13.10.2011 but the opposite parties had neither processed the claim forms nor paid the provident fund and pension amount, till the date of filing the complaint.  Hence, alleging deficiency of service, the complainant filed the complaint claiming the following reliefs from the opposite parties :-

1. To pay his provident fund amount with accumulated interest as well as pension ;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, for deficiency of service ;
3. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges ; and
4. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs.

 

            4.    The said complaint was resisted by the 2^nd Opposite party by filing a written version stating that the claim is premature in nature and is liable to be dismissed in limini.  The complainant is an ex-employee of the 1^st opposite party, namely, M/s. Kancheepuram District Consumer Cooperative Whole Sale Stores Limited.  The complainant has submitted his claims in Form No.19 and Form No.10D, without the attestation of the Authorised Signatory, the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore, the 2^nd opposite party returned the claim application of the complainant, for affixture of the signature of Authorised Signatory.  Further, the complainant was also advised to submit Form 5 and Form 10 particulars, at the time of re-submission of the claim forms, after attestation.  But, the claim forms were not re-submitted by the 1^st opposite party.  With regard to the same, on 19.07.2012, the 2^nd opposite party had also sent a reminder to the 1^st opposite party.   Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

            5. In so far as the 1^st Opposite party/ Employer is concerned, they remained ex-parte.

 

            6. In order to prove the case on the side of the Complainant, along with proof affidavit, 6 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6.  Copy of the proof affidavit along with 1 document has been filed by the 2^nd opposite party and  marked as Ex.B1.

 

            7. After analysing the material evidence placed on record, the District Forum has come to the conclusion that both the opposite parties have failed to settle the provident fund and pension amount to the complainant.  Therefore, the same would have caused several mental agony to the complainant and hence directed the opposite parties, jointly and severely, to settle the provident fund and pension amount to the complainant in Account No.TN 2859/551 immediately, with interest at the rate of 10% p.a., from 09.07.2012 and pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.  Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the 2^nd opposite party/Provident Fund Commissioner.

 

                8.   Pending Appeal, the Appellant/ 2^nd Opposite party had filed a Petition in C.M.P.No.46 of 2022, seeking to receive additional documents in support of his Appeal.  The said documents marked as Ex.B2 to Ex.B9, were taken on file.  

 

                9.  Learned counsel for the Appellant/ 2^nd Opposite party submitted that the 1^st respondent/ complainant is an ex-employee of the 2^nd respondent/ 1^st opposite party, namely, M/s. Kancheepuram District Consumer Cooperative Whole Sale Stores Limited.  The said establishment is covered under EPF & MP Act, 1952.  The 1^st respondent/ complainant/ employee namely, V.Kannan has been assigned with PF Account No.TN/MAS/2859/551.  He joined service on 14.03.1984 and served till his dismissal from service, on 29.05.2002.   Every claim, under Form 19 and 10D should be submitted through the employer.  But, in the instant case, the 1^st respondent/ employee has directly submitted the claim forms for his PF Account No. TN/MAS/2859/551, to the Tambaram Regional Office, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, on 15.03.2011, without obtaining the attestation of the Authorised Signatory/ Employer/ 2^nd respondent.  The said forms were forwarded to the appellant/ the Regional Office, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Chennai-14, on 23.03.2011.  The claim form No.19 pertaining to the provident fund amount and claim form No.10D towards the pension amount, submitted by the 1^st respondent were processed by assigning separate Claim ID for each forms, namely, Claim ID No.TNMAS110400007397 dated 05.04.2011 and Claim ID No.TNMAS110400007406 dated 05.04.2011, respectively.  While processing, it was found that those claim forms were incomplete with regard to date of birth, date of joining and date of leaving his service.  Further, Form No.5 and Form No.10, with required particulars to be furnished by the employer were also not annexed, with those claim forms.  Therefore, the Claim forms 19 and 10D, were duly forwarded to the 2^nd respondent/employer, for their due attestation and also to furnish Form 5 and Form 10.  The same was received by the 2^nd respondent on 12.05.2011.  The receipt of those claim forms by the 2^nd respondent was admitted by him, in his reply dated 13.10.2011, given to the 1^st respondent under RTI Act, marked as Ex.A3.  But the 2^nd respondent has not re-submitted those claim forms.  Hence, the appellant had issued a reminder letter dated 19.07.2012 to the 2^nd respondent for re-submission of the claim forms.  Inspite of the reminder letter, the 2^nd respondent did not re-submit the claim forms 19 and 10D.  Finally, the appellant through its Enforcement Officer collected the same from the 2^nd respondent, on 22.01.2013.  The Claim form 19 was assigned with new Claim ID No.TNMAS130100033169 and the same was settled on priority basis, on 24.01.2013, through NEFT transfer of Rs.1,03,096/- to the 1^st respondent’s Bank Account No.476520711, Indian Bank, Anakaputhur Branch, Chennai and the same was credited on 28.01.2013.  Similarly, the claim of the 1^st respondent for grant of pension submitted through Claim form 10D under the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995, was also collected from the 2^nd respondent by the appellant through its Enforcement Officer on 22.01.2013 and the same was processed on assigning new Claim ID No.TNMAS130100033177.  While processing the said claim, it was found that the date of birth of the 1^st respondent is 05.06.1963 and that he has not attained the requisite age of 50 years to avail the benefit of early pension on the date of processing the claim form namely, 22.01.2013.  Therefore, the complainant was not eligible either for early pension or for regular pension, on the said date.  Learned counsel for the appellant hence submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant, since the provident fund has also been paid to the 1^st respondent.

 

                10.  Heard the submission of the counsel for Appellant/ 2^nd opposite party and perused the material available on record.  There is no representation for the 1^st respondent/ complainant.  Counsel for the 2^nd respondent/ 1^st opposite party/ Employer did not appear.

 

        11.  The factual aspect of the case would show that the 1^st respondent/ complainant was dismissed from service on 29.05.2002.  Thereafter, he submitted Claim Form No.19 and Claim Form No.10D to the Appellant/ 2^nd opposite party.  Actually, the said application ought to have been enrooted through the 2^nd respondent/ employer.  Since there was no attestation by the 2^nd respondent/ employer and as there were no particulars about the date of birth, date of joining and date of leaving service, the claim forms were sent to the 2^nd respondent/ employer.  But the claim forms were not re-submitted by the 2^nd respondent/ employer.  However, the forms were collected from the 2^nd respondent/ employer by the Enforcement Officer of the appellant/ 2^nd opposite party and settled the claim, which is evident from Ex.B5 filed under additional documents, ie., the certified copy of the claim status.  Therefore, so far as the provident fund is concerned it has been duly settled to the complainant.  Further, it is an assertive submission of the appellant/ 2^nd opposite party that the complainant is not eligible for pension since he has not attained the required age of 58 years to avail the pension or even 50 years for early pension, on the date of rejection of the claim. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out by the 1^st respondent/ complainant to show that there is deficiency of service by the appellant/ 2^nd opposite party.  But, without considering all these aspects the District Forum, has allowed the complaint, which is legally not sustainable.

 

        12.  In the result, the Appeal is allowed and the order dated 14.03.2014 passed in C.C. No.225 of 2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), is set aside.  Consequently, the Appeal is allowed.

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                              R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/October/2022