Complaint Case No.35/2009
Date of Institution 15-1-2009
Date of Decision 30-4-2009

Chudamani Singh Pathania son of Sh.D.S. Pathania resident of House No.162/12 Ram Nagar , Mandi Town, District Mandi, H.P.

…Complainant


V/S

1. M/S Skymax Labs Ltd through its Managing Director
2. Accounts Officer M/S Skymax Labs Ltd both opposite
parties No.1 and 2 C/- B. 206 Sapath –IV Opposite Karnavti Club
3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ,Ahmadabad
( Gujarat)

Opposite parties


For the complainant Sh. Lokender Kutleheria, ,Advocate

Opposite parties Exparte

Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER.
This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties. The case of the complainant is that he was an employee of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and was employed as PSR
( Medical Representative ) w.e.f. 6-12-2006. The complainant was enrolled as Member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 . The opposite parties No.1 and 2 had deducted the employee’s contribution from the salary of the complainant and deposited the same with the opposite party No.3 alongwith the employer’s contribution. The complainant left the service of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 on 2-8-2007 and during eight months period of service, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 kept on deducting the provident fund amount every month from the salary of the complainant. It has been alleged that after leaving the job, the complainant applied for the release of Provident fund amount by fulfilling all the codal formalities but the opposite parties did not pay the amount and finally on 3-10-2008 the opposite party No.1 was served with legal notice Annexure C-1 but till date neither the notice has been replied nor the amount has been paid which amounts to deficiency in service .With these averments , the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite parties to pay PF amount of eight months along with employer’s contribution with interest , to pay Rs.5000/- for deficiency in service , to pay Rs.5000/- on account of mental agony and pain, to pay Rs.5000/- as damages . Apart from this, costs of litigation in the sum of Rs.5000/- has also been claimed.


2 The opposite parties No.1 to 3 have failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte.


3 We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire record. Be it stated that the opposite party No.3 had sent a letter dated 26-2-2009 to this Forum by post wherein it has been averred that the complainant be directed to give the details of membership number and date of submission of Form No.19 and 10-C to their office to enable them to apprise the facts to this Forum. Likewise the opposite parties No.1 and 2 instead of appearing either personally or through their authorized representative and instead of filing proper reply had sent a letter dated 28-2-2009 received by this Forum on 6-3-2009 and addressed to this Forum in a highly derogatory manner by describing the complainant as a client of this Forum . The contents of the aforesaid letter are reproduced as under:-


To
Mandi District Forum
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mandi
D.C. Office Complex Phase II Ist Floor Mandi
175001( H.P.)
Subject Reply to your notice under reference
complaint No.35/2009
Dear Sir,
With the reference to above mentioned subject, we have noted the contents of notice there in with dual care Mr. C.S. Pathania was our ex employee ;he was absconding from 17th July to till date on our paper. In this regard we sent him stop working letter as per enclosed photocopy. After that he neither contact to company nor informed us regarding his resignation letter. He neither submits company property nor sends his resignation letter till date.
So as per appointment letter, all other formalities are pending. We request you to inform your client to fulfill pending formalities as per appointment letter.

Thanks regards
For Skymax Laboratories Ltd
Sd/-
Accounts Manager



The perusal of the aforesaid letter shows that there is some dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and the complainant was informed by them to stop his working as a capacity of PSR ( Mandi). However it has not been denied that by the opposite patties No.1 and 2 that the complainant was not their employee and was not employed as PSR ( Medical representative) with effect from 6-12-2006. It has also not been denied that during the period of service of the complainant, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 were not deducting the employee’s contribution from the salary of the complainant and were not depositing the same with the opposite party No.3 alongwith employer’s contribution The complainant had alleged that after leaving the opposite parties No.1 and 2 , he applied for release of the PF amount by fulfilling all the codal formalities but his amount of PF was not paid which is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties .The complainant had adduced in evidence pay slip for the month of March 2007 issued by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 ( employer) which is in original and indicates that a sum of Rs.300/- was deducted by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 from the salary of the complainant and at the bottom it has also been mentioned that Employer PF contribution share was Rs.300/-. The complainant has proved that amount from his salary had been deducted by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 towards Provident Fund subscription. As discussed above , the opposite party No.3 who is Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had required membership number and date of submission of Form No.19 and 10-C from the complainant and it is the case of the complainant that he had applied for the release of provident fund amount by fulfilling all the codal formalities to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 , but the opposite parties No.1 and 2 did not provide the provident fund amount and finally on 3-10-2008 served the opposite parties with legal notice Annexure C-1 but till date neither received the reply of notice nor received the amount . In these circumstance it was incumbent upon the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to let this Forum know as to on what date and in what manner the claim of the complainant was forwarded to the opposite party No.3.The opposite parties No.1 and 2 in their letter dated 28-2-2009 had not uttered a word regarding non receipt of papers from the complainant nor about the receipt of legal notice and rather mentioned in the alleged letter that the complainant was absconding from 17th July till date and after that he neither contacted the company nor sent his resignation as per appointment letter and this Forum had been requested to inform him to fulfill pending formalities. However, this Forum has no concern whether the complainant had surrendered the assets of company or not because remedy with the opposite parties with respect to such dispute lies else where .The opposite party No.1 and 2 have failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte . The complainant has supported the allegations made in the complaint by filing his own affidavit. Hence there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant that he had applied for release of the provident fund amount by fulfilling all the codal formalities . Hence it can safely be held that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have been deficient in providing service to the complainant and he has been harassed by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and was forced to knock the door of this Forum for redressal of his grievance. The Act has been enacted for the betterment of the consumers. The very purpose of the act will be defeated if the complainant is not granted some compensation on this score . Therefore , he is held entitled for compensation from the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and in our opinion a sum of Rs.5000/- would be the just and reasonable amount payable by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to the complainant on account of harassment.



4. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove above the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to submit the complete documents of the provident fund account of the complainant with the opposite party No.3 within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the copy of this order and thereafter the opposite party No.3 is directed to release the entire amount of provident fund alongwith employer’s contribution to the complainant within a period of two months thereafter. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2500/- as costs of the complaint within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 9% PA from the date of this order till payment.