STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (IN APPEAL NO.355 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 27.09.2010 Date of Decision: 07.01.2011 1] Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi. 2] Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Nidhi Bhawan,A2 C, Sector 24, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida (U.P.). ……Appellants. Versus1] Vinod Kumar, Ex.Asstt. General Manager (Accounts), aged 61 years,R/oH.No.3120, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh. 2nd Address:- R/o #1/276, Housing Board Sri Ganga Nagar. 2] Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20, Bara Khamba Lane, Head Qter. New Delhi. 3] Zonal Manager (North) Food Corporation of India, Plot No.A2A, A-2B, Sector 24, Noida (U.P.) 4] General Manager, Food Corporation of India. Regional Office, Punjab, Bays No.34-38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh. ....Respondents. Argued by: Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Vinod Kumar, respondent No.1 in person. Sh. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. (APPEAL NO.376 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 13.10.2010 Date of Decision: 07.01.20111] Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20, Bara Khamba Lane, Head Qter. New Delhi. 2] Zonal Manager (North) Food Corporation of India, Plot No.A2A, A-2B, Sector 24, Noida (U.P.) 3] General Manager, Food Corporation of India. Regional Office, Punjab, Bays No.34-38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh ……Appellants. Versus1] Vinod Kumar, Ex.Asstt. General Manager (Accounts), aged 61 years,R/oH.No.3120, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh. 2nd Address:- R/o #1/276, Housing Board Sri Ganga Nagar. 2] Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi. 3] Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Nidhi Bhawan,A2 C, Sector 24, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida (U.P.). ....Respondents. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Sh.Vinod Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1 in person. Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. This order will dispose of two appeals under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) bearing F.A. Nos.355 and 376 both of 2010 filed by the OPs for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.8.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which OPs No.1 to 3 were jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing financial losses, physical harassment and mental agony to the complainant and OPs No.4 to 5 were directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for delaying the pension case of the complainant for a period of three years besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs to be paid by all the OPs. The order was directed to be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy by the OPs failing which the total amount of Rs.75,000/- was to carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 1.12.1999 till actual payment. 2. The case of the complainant is that he retired from Food Corporation of India on 31.5.2008 while working at Regional Office, Punjab of OPs No.1 to 3. Being the member of Employees Pension Scheme, he submitted all the requisite papers for grant of pension well before his retirement to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner duly forwarded by OP No.1 but the pension case was returned with the remarks that it did not pertain to the Head Quarter and the same was covered under North Zone. It was alleged that OP No.1 erred by sending his pension case to OP No.2 i.e. Zonal Office, which too erred by forwarding his pension case to OP No.4 i.e. R.P.F.C, Noida, which was not the appropriate authority in case of Category I officers of F.C.I. It was averred by the complainant that as per the rules, his pension case was to be got settled by OP No.1 from OP No.5. The complainant also requested OP No.5 vide letter dated 11.7.2009 with a copy to OPs No.1 and 2 to settle his pension case within 15 days. The grouse of the complainant was that despite timely submission of the required papers with the authorities, his pension was not released and he has been deprived of his pension, which caused him financial loss, mental harassment and agony. Being aggrieved and left with no other alternative, the complainant filed the present complaint. 3. OPs No.1 to 3 in their reply pleaded that the pension papers of the complainant were submitted to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who returned the same vide letter dated 26.6.2008 with remarks that it would be settled by the concerned Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. As per these OPs, the OP Management thereafter submitted the papers for fixation of family pension of complainant vide letter dated 13.8.2008 to concerned Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and as such, there was no delay on the part of these OPs. OPs No.1 to 3 next asserted that the pension of the complainant had been released vide letter dated 24.12.2009 (Annexure-I). Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, these OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. OPs No.4 and 5 also filed a separate joint reply wherein they admitted that in order to streamline the procedure for settlement of pension claim, it was decided by EPFO that all pension cases belonging to Classes I to IV officials would be dealt with at one place i.e. Noida Office w.e.f. 31.3.2006 and accordingly, OP No.1 was asked to submit the pension papers of the complainant to concerned RPFC i.e. OP NO.5 as the complainant had superannuated on 4.5.2006 i.e. after 31.3.2006. They further pleaded that the complete pension papers of the complainant were received from OP No.2 i.e. FCI, Noida only on 18.12.2009 by OP No.5 vide Annexure R-4/2 and the same were processed immediately and forwarded to the Regional Office Jaipur, Rajasthan for disbursement of the pension as the complainant desired his monthly pension through SBI, Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. It was also asserted that the monthly pension was released to the complainant vide PPO No.992063, dated 12.3.2010. As regards the delay, it was submitted by these OPs that if any delay had taken place, it was on the part of OPs No.1 to 3. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, these OPs also prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions. 5. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay to the complainant the amounts of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as compensation on different counts besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation and to pay interest @18% per annum in case of failure to comply with the order within 45 days as mentioned in the opening para of this order. OPs have challenged the impugned order through these two separate appeals. 6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The learned counsel for the OPs/appellants have argued that there was no delay on the part of any of them and in fact, the papers were submitted late by the complainant/respondent himself. It is argued that the delay, if any, was a procedural delay and therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. We do not find any merit in this argument. It is admitted that the complainant had submitted the papers on 23.7.2007. The mere fact that he could have submitted these papers even prior to that date would not give any justification to the OP/appellants to sit over the same and delay the disposal thereof. The papers were to be sent to the Zonal Office i.e. OP No.5 but the same were sent to OP No.4 the Head Office by OPs No.1 to 3. Another deficiency on the part of OPs No.1 to 3 was that they did not even scrutinize the papers before forwarding the same to OP No.5, which pointed out to them that the social security number was not mentioned in the pension papers submitted to it by them. These OPs did not even care to scrutinize the pension papers though they kept the same with them for about one year before forwarding it to OP No.4. OPs No.1 to 3 could not point out as to why they had kept the papers for such a long period, why these were not properly scrutinized before sending the same further and why these were not sent to the proper office of OP No.5 for sanction. These constituted the deficiency in service on their part. 8. The papers were received by OP No.5 complete in all respects on 13.8.2008 vide Annexure RP-4/2. In their written reply and affidavit, OPs No.4 and 5 have misstated the facts that the papers complete in all respects were received by OP No.5 on 18.12.2009 though the letter vide which these were alleged to have been received is the same i.e. Annexure R-4/2 dated 6.8.2008. Now it was the turn of OP No.5 to sit over the matter till 12.3.2010 when the P.P.O was issued. OP No.5 has not been able to explain as to why it took 18 months in issuing the P.P.O, which ordinarily under its rules should have been issued within 30 days. It shows the callous attitude of OPs/appellants in dealing with the pension papers of their employees without caring for the hardships they may be facing in the absence of the release of pension. The learned District Forum has directed OPs No.1 to 3 to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and OPs No.4 and 5 to pay Rs.25,000/- i.e. a total of Rs.75,000/-, which in view of the circumstances mentioned above, is not excessive. 9. The learned counsel for OPs No.4 and 5 has argued on the basis of Kishori Lal Vs. Chairman, E.S.I, Corporation, AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1819 that it was a ‘contract of service and not a ‘contract for service’ and therefore, the dispute is not covered under the definition of ‘service’ and the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to try this case. The facts of that case were totally different from the facts of the case in hand. Otherwise also, the distinction between a ‘contract for service’ and ‘contract of service’ is elucidated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para No.8 of the judgment to the effect that a ‘contract for service’ implies a contract whereby one party undertakes to render service e.g. professional or technical service, to or for another in the performance of which he is not subject to detailed direction and control and exercise professional or technical skill and uses his own knowledge and discretion. On the other hand, a ‘contract of service’ implies relationship of master and servant and involves an obligation to obey orders in the work to be performed and as to its mode and manner of performance. It was held that ‘contract of service’ is excluded for consideration from the ambit of definition of ‘service’ under the Act whereas the ‘contract for service’ is included. The learned counsel could not point out as to how it was a relationship of master and servant involving an obligation to obey (the master) in the work to be performed rather it was a ‘contract for service’ in which the OPs were to exercise their own skill and use their own knowledge and discretion in dealing with the release of pension and therefore, the present dispute is included in the definition of ‘service’ as given under Clause (o) of Section 2 of the Act. 10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed with costs. Both sets of the appellants shall pay Rs.5,000/- each (i.e. total Rs.10,000/-) as costs of litigation to the complainant/respondent. 11. It is made clear that the OPs/appellants would be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation, costs and interest from the employees/officials due to whose fault, the matter was delayed in their office. The recovery shall, however, be made after giving such officials an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 12. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 7th January 2011. [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION Appeal No. 355 of 2010 Argued by: Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Vinod Kumar, respondent No.1 in person. Sh. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. Dated the 7th day of January 2011. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal along with connected appeal bearing FA No.376 of 2010 have been dismissed with costs. (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (APPEAL NO.376 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 13.10.2010 Date of Decision: 07.01.2011 1] Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20, Bara Khamba Lane, Head Qter. New Delhi. 2] Zonal Manager (North) Food Corporation of India, Plot No.A2A, A-2B, Sector 24, Noida (U.P.) 3] General Manager, Food Corporation of India. Regional Office, Punjab, Bays No.34-38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh ……Appellants. Versus1] Vinod Kumar, Ex.Asstt. General Manager (Accounts), aged 61 years,R/oH.No.3120, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh.2nd Address:- R/o #1/276, Housing Board Sri Ganga Nagar. 2] Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi. 3] Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Nidhi Bhawan,A2 C, Sector 24, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida (U.P.). ....Respondents. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Sh.Vinod Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1 in person. Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. For orders, see the orders passed in FA No.355 of 2010 titled ‘Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another Vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar and others’ vide which this appeal has been dismissed with costs.. 2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 7th January 2011. [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBERAd/-
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | | 
