C.C. Case No. 38 of 2009
28th January , 2010 .BEFORE :
Sri P. K Pattanaik, President , AND

Smt. Binodini Devi , Member .


Name of the Parties .

Sri Rabi Padhiary, aged about 53 years

S/o Bula Padhiary,

( Ex-employee, NCARD Bank)

Vill/P.O : Khandapada(Gadavitarsahi)

P.S: Khandapada Dist- Nayagarh.

---------------------- Complainant .

-Vrs-

1. Secretary, Nayagarh CARD Bank Ltd., Nayagarh.

2. Management In-charge -do-

3. Managing Director, OSCARD Bank Ltd.,

Jawaharlal Neheru Marg, Unit-3 BBSR.

4.

Registar, Co.OPP-Societies, Orissa, BBSR.
5.

Chief General Manager, NABARD, BBSR.

---------------------- Opp. Parties .

Counsel for the complainant : - None

Counsel for the O.Ps : - None

Date of appearance of O.Ps : - 30-09-2009

Date of hearing : - 07-01-2010

Date of Judgment : - 28-01-2010


J U D G M E N T


P.K.Pattanaik, President :-


Deficiency in service is the chief allegation of the petitioner against the O.Ps.

The complainant Rabi Padhiary has initiated the instant complaint u/s 12 of C.P. Act against the O.Ps. All the O.Ps except the O.P.No.5 have appeared in the Forum and filed their w/v , but the O.P.No.5 inspite of service of summons, did not appear at all and hence was set ex parte.


The Complainant's allegation inshort is as follows that he was working as a Peon under the CARD Bank, Nayagarh and got retired on 31.5.2007. The O.P.No.1 has not released and disbursed his C.P.F. amount of Rs.47,818/- with legitmate interest . The complainant has been approaching the O.P.No.1 but to no avail . Hence he has filed this complaint for deficiency in service and claimed payment of Rs.47,818/- along with upto date interest. He prayed for Rs.10,000/- towards damage for harassment and mental agony.

On the other hand, the written version on behalf of O.P. No.1and O.P.No.2, O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.4 have also been filed. The O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 in their written versions have challenged the maintainability of this proceeding on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer and further since a E.P.F court is available to deal with the present dispute the instant proceeding should not be adjudicated in this Forum which lacks jurisdiction. The O.P.No.1,in the w/v has no where disowned the CPF dues of the complainant but has categorically averred that the O.P.No.3 has availed the funds from the Govt of India and kept the same amount with him. It is not possible to settle the claim of the complainant.

The O.P.No.3 in his w/v though has objected the maintainability of the present dispute but disowned his liability as the complainant was never an employee under M.D OSCARD Bank. The claim of the complainant should be against the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.3 should be deleted from the cause title of the case.

O.P.No.4 averes that the consumer dispute against him is not maintainability as misjoinder of necessary party and there is no consumer relationship of the complainant with O.P.No.4 and O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 are no way subordinate to O.P.No.4 and therefore his name should be deleted from the cause title.

The complainant has filed affidavit evidence and the O.P.No.4 also filed w/s with affidavit. But the w/vs of O.P.No.1 ,O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.3 did not contain any supporting affidavit.

Now to decide the dispute at hand ,the following issues need be discussed.

ISSUES

1.

Is the dispute maintainability?
2.

Is the complainant a consumer?
3.

Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops

FINDINGS

Issue No 1 & No 2

Section (2) (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P Act defines “Consumer”as under :-

“Consumer means any person who ( hires or avails of ) any services

for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid

and partly promised, or under any system of differed payment and

includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who

( hires or avails of ) the services for consideration paid or promised ,

or partly paid and partly promised , or under any system or differed

payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the

first mentioned person ( but does not includes a person who avails

of such services for any commercial purpose ) ”.

Here the main allegation of the complainant is that a certain amount was deducted from his monthly salary and kept as CPF with the O.P.No.1. The said CPF amount along with interest as admissible under the scheme should have been disbursed to the complainant before his retirement by the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2. No doubt the CPF deductions are the personal money of the complainant and the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 can not side track the issue by shifting the burden on OSCARD Bank who has not yet released the amount and kept with him,after availing the same from the Govt of India. Since the O.P.No. 1 has deducted a particular amount every month till the closure of service of complainant, as CPF account it was his duty to disburse the entire amount to the beneficiary i.e the complainant. The transaction pertaining to CPF account definitely comes under O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 . The complainant has committed no error in filing the instant complaint u/s 12 of C.P Act and as such the issues No1 ans 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No -3

Now in the light of averements in the complainant and the written versions of the O.Ps , it is comply proved that the CPF money as deducted from the monthly salary of the complainant has not been disbursed to him in due time i.e at the time of his retirement.

Service has been defined u/s 2(1) (0) which needs as

Section (2) (1) (o) of the C.P Act defines “Service” as under :-

“ Service means service of any description which is made available top

potential ( Users and includes , but not limited to , the provision of )

facilities in connection with banking , financing insurance , transport ,

processing , supply of electrical or other energy , board or lodging or

both , ( housing construction , ) entertainment , amusement or the

purveying of news or other information, but does not include the

rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal

service . ”


The service of O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 is to accord good and benifitial faithful duty towards the person concerned. In this regard the O.P.No.1 has granted some copies to the complainant which have been relied on by the complainant as endorsed in the body of the complaint. But in our plain reading of the case ,we understand that the only plight of the complainant was the CPF which could not have been disbursed to him in appropriate time and unnecessary delay has been caused to him. The copies granted to complainant might have prompted him to array O.Ps.No.3 , 4 and No.5 as O.Ps in the instant proceeding. True, it is,the complainant who does not seek any relief from these O.Ps. The Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008 has absolutely no application to the text of the instant proceeding. The O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 have unnecessarily raised this irrelevant issue only to mislead the complainant. Hence issue No 3 is answered in favour of the complainant.

Hence it is ordered .

O R D E R

The O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 are directed to disburse the entire C.P.F amountto the complainant with up to date admissible interest and further to pay Rs 500/-( Rupees Five hundred )only towards litigation cost within two months from the date of order. The O.Ps.No.3,4 & 5 are no way concerned with the case in any manner and hence they are exonerated from any liability

Sri P. K. Pattanaik