Thread: Provident Fund

Deena Nath Mahto s/o Sh. Munshi Mahto, C/o Vishal Tewari Adv., 167-B, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.



…..Complainant.

Versus



1- M/s V.K. Textiles, 141, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana, through its Partner/Prop.

2- Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sun Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Sham Nagar, general Bus Stand, Ludhiana, through its Regional Commissioner. …..Opposite parties.









O R D E R







1- Complainant while working with opposite party no.1, was allotted provident fund account no.PN/9882/109 by opposite party no.2. Complainant submitted form no.19, for withdrawal of his provident fund, which application was received by oppoiste party on 6.11.2007. To his surprise, was intimated vide letter dated 28.11.2007 of the opposite party that his provident fund amount has been withdrawn on 7.2.1985. Complainant in his form, had given his saving bank account no.11902 of Bank of India, Maker Chhhapra, to which account, provident fund was never credited or transferred.


As such, his provident fund amount has been withdrawn without his permission and illeglly, without paying to him. Such act has affected right of the complainant, qua his provident fund amount and by not paying the same, opposite party are guilty of deficiency in service. Because they have mis-appropriated his provident fund amount, resultantly, filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to pay the actual provident fund amount with compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

2- Opposite party no.1 did not contest the complaint and is being proceeded exparte.

3- Opposite party no.2 in reply, stated that as per their record, provident fund account number of the complainant, was PM/9882/109. Complainant submitted form no.19 which was rejected, as his account was already settled in the year 1985. They denied for want of knowledge that the amount of provident fund was never credited to his account.


As amount was paid to the complainant in 1985, so he can not now complain non receipt of the fund. Complainant, as per record, served with opposite party no.1, from 07/1983 to 05/1984 and the provident fund was paid in the year 1985, on receipt of form no.19, duly attested by the employer of the complainant. As the matter pertained to the year 1985, so form no.19 was retained for the period of three years only and thereafter, it was destroyed under rules and guidelines framed by the department. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4- Complainant and opposite party, in support of their pleadings, tendered affidavits as well as documents in evidence and stood heard through their respective counsels.

5- As per letter Ex.C1 of opposite party no.2, addressed to the complainant, it is apparent that complainant had applied vide his application dated 6.11.2007, for payment of provident fund account, pertaining to his account no.9882/109. Complainant under that letter, was intimated that amount in his provident fund, has already been settled and paid on 7.2.1985. In these circumstances, complainant claimed that such amount was never credited to his saving bank account no.11902 of Bank of India, Maker Chhapra, to which the amount was to be credited. Though complainant in support of the allegations, has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and also copy of the passbook (Ex.C2) of Bank of India, Maker branch.


But this passbook of the complainant with Bank of India, pertained to the period 22.2.2007 to 4.2.2009. Of course, there is no entry in the passbook of the complainant regarding crediting amount of his provident fund. Neither such entry could have been recorded in his account with the bank, because as per defence of the opposite party, the amount was transferred and paid to the complainant in 1985. Complainant has withheld that record of bank, pertaining to year 1985. Had he produced proof of his saving bank account of 1985, then it would have been easier, to ascertain that provident fund was never credited to his account in 1985.

6- Whereas, opposite party through affidavit Ex.RW1/A of its Assistant Commissioner Sh. I.S. Walia, has supported the reply that claim was settled and paid in 1985, when complainant prayed for refund, by filling form no.19. Further plea of opposite party that record of 1985 was destroyed after three years, under rules, stands authenticated from document Ex.RW1/A, prescribing period for retention of records/account documents. Vide entry at serial no.19 of the instructions, period of three years, is mentioned for destruction of the record, after claim is paid off. So, it means when claim, as per opposite party, was paid in 1985, the record pertaining thereto, stands destroyed after three years.

7- Opposite party have also brought on record, photo copy Ex.RW1/B of paragraph 36(1), showing that provident fund against account no.9882/109 of one Dina Nath s/o Mush Lal, for the period 7/83 to 5/84, was settled. According to ld. counsel for the complainant, he never received amount of provident fund, as opposite party credited the funds to a different person named Dina Nath s/o Mush Lal. Whereas, name of the complainant is Deena Nath Mahto s/o of Sh. Munshi Mahto. Resultantly, they had given his provident fund to a wrong person.

8- No doubt, father’s name of the complainant Deena Nath, recorded in Ex.RW1/B, does not tally with the name of his father, as mentioned in the complaint. But his provident fund account, as alleged by him in the complaint, is the similar recorded in Ex.RW1/B. So, means his account stands settled in 1985, regarding which, after such payment, record was destroyed, under rules by the opposite party. Complainant has not placed on record, statement of his bank account of the year 1985, so we can not say with certainty that amount of his provident fund, was never credited to his account in 1985.

9- In view of aforesaid reasons, we find no substance in the complaint, which is also very belated. Therefore, the same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear own costs. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to record room.

CLAIM UNDER EPLYEES PENSION SCHEME
IN RESPECT OF SHRI KAMLAKAR. S. SALUNKE
ACCOUNT No.MH/4939/37
--------------------------------------------------------------
Respected Sir,
I have retired from the service in April 2007, my office The
Supreme Industries Ltd, Submitted my claim papers in your office vide their
letter dated 12-01-2008 and your office has acknowledge to this letter on4-02-2008
along with full details, Sir it has completed 2 years but I have not received my
pension.

In this connection I visited to your Bandra Office on16-09-2008 ,the person looking after has given me letter dated 18/03/2007 and told me that sum funds of mine has not transferred From The Regional P F. Commissioner, S R O Kandivali and told me clear From that office.
I have also visited your Kandivali Office and visited Shri P U Kulkarni
R.C.(II) office they told me that “ As per F/9 available in A/CGr43 MH/4939/490 was transferred in1991-92 to MH/4939/49 EXEMPTED & No.further records available since estb. Was previously in R. O. Bandra”

M.R.G.ANAND

No.27, Behind Syndicate Bank,

Staff Colony, S.V.G. Nagar,

Mudal Palya, Bangalore – 74.

…. Complainant.

V/s



01. The Regional Provident Fund Commission,

Dickenson Road, Bangalore – 42.

Represented by its Manager,



02. The Regional Provident Fund,

Commission, (II), No.34,

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,

Bandra East, Mumbai – 51.



03. Carona Limited,

Regd, Office AT:New Udyog Mandir

Compound Mogul Lane, Mahim,

Mumbai 16.

…. Opposite Parties

-: ORDER:-



This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the complainant Rs.2,36,529/- towards Provident Fund Amount, Rs.21,000/- towards Expenditure incurred and Rs,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service, in all Rs.3,07,259/- with interest at 18% Per Annum from the date of complaint till the date of realization, on the following grounds:-



2. The complainant was working in Carona Limited, Chikpet, Bangalore from 01/08/1981 to 01/09/2007 as a Sales Man. During the period of 27 years of service, his salary was raised from Rs.128/- Per Month to Rs.3,243/- Per Month. Opposite Party No.3 – the Employer was deducing Rs.330/- Per Month from the salary of the complainant towards Provident Fund. He resigned the job on 31/08/2007. Opposite Party No.3 accepted the resignation. During the tenure of his service, he was assigned P.F. A/c No.MH/9264/3108/ Group NoXXIV.


He contributed to the Provident Fund out of his salary up-to 01/09/2007. After his resignation was accepted by the Opposite Party No.3, the complainant submitted Form No.19 for settlement of the Provident Fund amount. Opposite Party No.1 paid Rs.1,83,458/- on 09/04/2008 through cheque calculating the Provident Fund Amount up-to July - 1996. Opposite Party No.1 has not calculated the amount up-to 31/08/2007. Therefore, the Provident Fund amount contributed from August-1996 to August-2007 is not paid by Opposite Party No.1. He issued legal notice dated 16/11/2008, the same was served on Opposite Party No.1.


The notice sent to Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 returned with endorsement “as no such person”. On receipt of legal notice, Opposite Party No.1 sent reply admitting the dues. The complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,36,259/- which was deducted from his salary up-to 01/09/2007 as contribution towards Provident Fund. He visited the office of Opposite Party No.1 at Mumbai three times and spent about Rs.21,000/- towards journey. He also suffered mental agony due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Hence, the complaint.



3. In spite of service of notice, Opposite Party No.3 – CARONA LIMITED has remained absent.

4. In the version, the contention of Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 is as under:-

The complainant was an employee of M/s CARONA LIMITED and he was allotted P.F.Account No.MH/9264/3108. After leaving service, the complainant applied for withdrawal of his Provident Fund and he was paid Rs.1,83,458/- by cheque dated 09/04/2008 towards Provident Fund contributions up-to July-1996 with interest thereon. The P.F. amount for the further period could not be paid as Opposite Party No.3 has failed to deposit Rs.5.66 crores towards Provident Fund, Pension Fund, Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Fund and penal interest thereon from August-1996 onwards.


Action for recovery of the outstanding dues was initiated against the establishment and a Show Cause notice dated 13/07/2004 was issued before issue of arrest warrant. The Establishment approached the Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai with Writ Petition No.2376/2004 and obtained stay on the recovery action on the ground that the matter was pending before the Appellate Authority, BIFR for consideration. By the order dated 22/03/2007, the Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai disposed off the writ petition with directions to start fresh recovery proceedings as per Income Tax Rules.


Accordingly, fresh recovery proceedings have been initiated and the same are in progress for attachment of the property of the establishment for recovery of the outstanding dues. The complainant was paid Provident Fund dues with up-to date interest standing to his P.F. Account and further amount could not be paid as the establishment failed to deposit the Provident Fund and allied dues since August-1996. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.





5. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits. We have heard the arguments on both side.



6. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

7. Our finding to the above points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

8. The fact that the complainant was an employee of the establishment of Opposite Party No.3 from 01/08/1981 to 01/09/2007 and that he resigned the Job w.e.f. 31/08/2007 is not disputed. Admittedly Opposite Party No.1 paid Rs.1,83,458/- towards P.F. Amount of the complainant for the period up-to July-1996 and the amount contributed towards P.F. for the period from August-1996 to August-2007 is not paid.


It is the contention of Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 that the establishment namely Opposite Party No.3 has not paid the amount towards P.F. Account of the employees right from August-1996 and therefore the contribution made towards P.F. Account from August-1996 to August-2007 is not paid to the complainant. It is also stated by Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 that already they have initiated the recovery proceedings for the recovery of the amount due from Opposite Party No.3. After the complainant issued legal notice dated 16/11/2008, Opposite Party No.1 gave reply dated 02/12/2008. The complainant has produced the copy of the reply notice given by Opposite Party No.1.


In the reply also Opposite Party No.1 has made it clear that M/s CARONA LIMITED namely Opposite Party No.3 has complied its dues and remitted up-to 1996 and therefore the settlement of the P.F. dues was considered on receipt basis and action for recovery are already invoked and the matter is subjudice. It is also mentioned in the reply that the balance amount will be paid to the members after the recovery is enforced. When the employer namely Opposite Party No.3 himself has not remitted the amount towards P.F. Account of the employees from August-1996, Opposite Party No.1 cannot be held liable for the amount due for the period from August-1996 to August-2007.


Since Opposite Party No.1 has already initiated proceedings against Opposite Party No.3 for recovery of the dues, the complainant at this stage cannot insist upon Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 for payment of the amount due for the period from August-1996 to August-2007. In the reply dated 02/12/2008, Opposite Party No.1 has also undertaken to pay the balance amount to the members after recovery of the amount due from Opposite Party No.3. In this view of the matter we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.


Since on Opposite Party No.1 has already initiated recovery proceedings against Opposite Party No.3, no direction can be given to Opposite Party No.3 in this complaint to pay the balance amount to the complainant. If such a direction is given that may conflict with the findings that will be given in the recovery proceedings initiated by Opposite Party No.1. For these reasons, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint. In the result, we pass the following:-

-:ORDER:-



1. The complaint is DISMISSED. No order as to costs.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
3. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 05th Day of OCTOBER 2009.

Gaurav Tuli sonof Sh. Suresh Kumar Tuli resident of C/O Vora Niwas, Village Chatair, Post office Yol Cantt, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra 9HP)



Complainant

Versus



1. Regional Provident Fund Office, Rajasthan through it’s Commissioner

2. Savior India Private Limited Head Office at BA 43A, Janakpuri-New Delhi, through it’s Managing Director.

Opposite parties



O R D E R



The brief facts, as alleged, in the compliant are that the complainant had got employment under the opposite party No.2, (who is dealing in FMCG Goods), on 1.3.2001 after qualifying the personality as well as interview test. The complainant was appointed as Sales-Executive for Himachal Pradesh, and had remained posted on this post in H.P. till April 2004. Thereafter, he was promoted as Sales Officer, for the states of Jammu & Kashmir, and Himachal Pradesh, for looking the affairs of the opposite party No.2, in both these states. It is alleged that the opposite party No.2 had agreed to pay the scale of Rs.6500/- per month, alongwith other benefits, as admissible.


It is further alleged by the complainant that after joining the services of the opposite party No.2, he had become the member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme under the opposite party No.1, bearing account No.RJ/13622/38 through the opposite party No.2. It is alleged by the complainant that he had resigned from the company of the opposite party No.2, with effect from December 2006, from the post of the “Sales Executive”. The area of operation was Himachal Pradesh. After the resignation from this post, the complainant had made written representation before the opposite parties, for releasing his Provident Fund, but of no avail.


It is alleged as per the terms and conditions of the “Employees Provident Fund Scheme”, the sum contributed by the Employees, as well as by the Employers, is supposed to be maintained in the account of the employees, and it is supposed to be settled/released in favour of the member by the opposite parties, but in this case, the opposite parties did not settle/release the amount of his Provident Fund, lying in his account, even after his resignation from the employment of the opposite party No.2. It is alleged that the complainant had made various telephone calls, and contacts with the opposite parties, for the disbursement of the amount lying with them, but they had refused to settle his grievance, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

The complainant has prayed that the amount lying in his account NO. RJ/13622/38 with the opposite parties alongwith accrued Bones, and interest, on this amount, be ordered to be released. He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, for his mental agony, and harassment. He has also claimed Rs.5000/-, as litigation charges.

2. The opposite parties were duly served for 4.7.08, but they did not appear on 4.7.08, so, both the opposite parties were proceeded against exparte by this Forum, vide order dated 4.7.08.

3. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, and have also gone through the case file, facts and the evidence on the record.

4. Ex.CW-1 is the affidavit of the complainant Sh. Gaurav Tuli, in which he has corroborated the facts/version of his complaint. Annexure C-1, is the copy of the statement of the accounts of the complainant Sh. Gaurv Tuli, issued by the Regional Provident Fund, Rajasthan, under EPF Scheme 1992, pertaining to the year 2005-2006, and according to which, a sum of Rs.12170/-, was due to the complainant being an employee, and a sum of Rs.3720/-, was the amount deposited by the Employer. Since, both the opposite parties have not bothered to come, and contest this complaint before this Forum, so, the version/evidence led by the complainant remains un-rebutted on the file.


There is no reason to dis-believe the version/evidence of the complainant. We have no option, except to accept the un-rebutted evidence of the complainant. Since, the opposite parties did not release the Provident Fund of the complainant, without any justified reasons, so it is crystal clear that they have been deficient, in rendering proper services to the complainant. Hence, this complaint deserves to be partly allowed.

5. We are also of the view that due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental agony, and harassment. So, the ends of justice will be met, in case, the opposite parties are directed to pay the compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.3000/-, for his mental agony, and harassment. We also assess Rs.1500/-, as litigation charges.

6. No other point has been argued or urged before us.

7. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the complaint is partly allowed. We order to both the opposite parties jointly and severally to release the whole of the amount of the Provident Fund of the complainant lying in his account No. RJ/13622/38 alongwith accrued bonus and interest upto date, at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till it’s final payment, within 30 days after the receipt of copy of this order.


We also direct to the opposite parties No.1 and 2, to pay the compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.3000/-, for his mental agony, and harassment, and litigation charges to the tune of Rs.1500/- which will be paid by the opposite parties No.1 and 2, jointly and severally, within 30 days after the receipt of the copy of this order. The copy of this order be sent to both the parties, free of costs, by post, and the file after it’s due completion be consigned to the record-room.

Valliyadan B eena,

D/o.Late P.Omana,

ValliyadanHouse,

Vietnam Tribal Colony, complainant

P.O.Keezhpally





1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,

Employees Provident Fund organization,

8th 9th floor, Mayoor Bhavan,

Cannaught Circus, New Delhi 1.

2. The Secretary,

Board of Trustees, EPF,

State Farms Corporation of India Ltd.,

14,15, Farms Bhavan, Nehru Place, Opposite Parties

New Delhi19



3. The Manager,

LIC of India Zonal Office,

New Delhi 110001



O R D E R




This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to disburse the EDLIS benefit to the complainant amounting to Rs.62, 000/- along with 12% interest from 17.10.97 till realization with compensation and cost.

The complainant’s case is that she is the daughter of late P.Omana, who was an employee of Central State Farm, Aralam, and was a member of EPF scheme having EPF account No.DL.3670/00306. She was died on 14.10.07 while she was an employee. So the complainant is entitled to receive the employees deposit linked insurance scheme as the nominee of the deceased. The complainant had submitted an application for disbursement of EDLIS benefits through the employer, immediately after the death of the employee. The complainant has not received the benefits, even after a lapse of 7 years.


The complainant believes that the delay is caused due to the negligence of the opposite parties. So the complainant has issued a lawyer notice dt.5.8.04 to 1st opposite party and the employer, demanding to settle the claim. The employer had issued a reply stating that the claim made by the complainant has been sent to 2nd opposite party long back along with necessary particulars. The opposite parties miserably failed to disburse the EDLIS benefits to the complainant within the statutory period of 30 days. Hence this complaint.

On receiving the notice from the Forum opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their version.

1st opposite party filed version contending that the EDLIS accounts in respect of employees of State Farms Corporation of India Ltd. has been maintained by 3rd opposite party under group Insurance scheme and have 3rd opposite party to release the benefits to the employee. The 2nd opposite party is an exempted establishment under the subsection 2A of section 17 of EPF & M.P Act of 1952. On receipt of the complaint, the 1st opposite party immediately contacted 2nd opposite party and asked them to redress the grievance of the complainant. Accordingly the 2nd opposite party intimated by letter dt.13.10.04 that the 3rd opposite party has released a sum of Rs.37000/- as per cheque No.529786 dt.12.10.04 to the complainant on account of settlement of EDLIS benefits of deceased P.Omana. So the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

2nd opposite party also filed version contending that 2nd opposite party has already taken up the matter before the appropriate authorities for releasing the payment under the scheme EDLIS and they informed the complainant on 24.9.04 that the matter is pending before LIC and the benefit will be released by LUIC shortly. More over there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and the complainant has nothing to do with 2nd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3rdopposite party also filed version admitting that there is a group insurance arrangement providing for employees Deposit linked insurance with State aralam Farm and a claim under the scheme was settled by the 3rd opposite party earlier. On 9.10.04, a cheque for an amount of Rs.37, 000/- dt.12.10.04 issued to the S.B account of 2160 ie.SB account of the complainant as the claim settlement and the same was enchased on 26.10.04. Since the 3rd opposite party has honored the claim without any delay, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A4and B1 and B2.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

The complaint has been filed by the complainant for disbursing the EDLIS benefit of the complainant i.e. Rs.62, 000/- with 12% interest from 17.10.97 till realization with cost and compensation. But during the pendency of the proceedings the 3rd opposite party has already disbursed Rs.37, 000/- on 12.10.04 by way of cheque as EDLIS benefit. So the remaining question to be decided is whether the complainant is entitled to receive balance amount of Rs.25, 000/- as EDLIS benefit and whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in disbursing the EDLIS benefit of the complainant.

As per the employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme 1976, section 2(b) defines the assurance benefit as a payment linked to the average balance in the provident fund account of an employee payable to a person belonging to his family or otherwise entitled to it in the event of death of the employee while being a member of the fund. Section 22 further explains the scales of assurance benefit and the minimum average balance to be maintained by an employee as on the death of an employee.


who is a member of the fund or of a provident fund exempted under section 17 of the Act, as the case maybe the persons entitled to receive the provident fund accumulations of the deceased shall in addition to such accumulations be paid an amount, equal to the average balance to the account of the deceased in the fund or of a provident fund exempted under section 17 of the Act, as the case may be during preceding 12 months or during the period of his membership whichever is less except where the average balance exceeds rupees thirty five thousand, the amount payable shall be rupees thirty five thousand plus 25% of the amount in excess of rupees Thirty five thousand subject to a ceiling of rupees Sixty thousand.



Further the explanation(1) to this explains the average balance in the fund or in the provident fund exempted under section 17 of the Act, as the case may be, in relation to an employee the sum total contribution by the employee and the employer due for and up to the relevant period, whether paid or unpaid in the fund or is the provident fund exempted under section 17 of the Act, together with the interest therein shall be included. So it is very clear that in order to determine whether the complainant is entitled to any balance amount as EDLIS benefit, we have to know either the employee’s salary and other emoluments or the contribution paid by the employer and employee along with other details regarding the period of employment, EPF details etc. But no such details or documents are produced by the complainant. So the complainant failed to prove that he is entitled to get more amounts towards EDLIS. Hence the issue is answered negatively

The other question is whether there is any delay caused on the part of opposite parties for disbursing the amount. Complainant alleged that soon after the death of the employee during 1997, the nominee had applied for EDLIS benefit. But the opposite parties are not disputed the averment and have no case that the complainant has not applied for the same during 1997. So it can be inferred that the complainant has applied for the EDLIS benefit during 1997 itself. But it is an admitted fact that the 3rd opposite party has disbursed the EDLIS benefit only on 12.10.04, after 7 years from the application. As per section 24(4) of the EDLIS, 1976, “the claims complete in all respects submitted along within the requisite documents shall be settled and benefit amount paid to the beneficiaries within 30 days from the date of receipt by the Commissioner. If there is any deficiency in the claim, the same shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt of such application.


In case the Commissioner fails without sufficient cause to settle a claim, complete in all respect, within 30 days, the Commissioner shall be liable for the delay beyond the said period and penal interest 12% per annum may be charged on the benefit amount. But in this case the commissioner has not either issued any letter to the complainant to the effect that her application is defective or settled the claim within 30 days. The 1st opposite party has produced a notification dt.7.6.99 it is stated that “upon the death of the member covered under the Group Insurance scheme, Life Insurance corporation of India shall ensure prompt payment, to the sum assured to the nominee of the deceased member entitled for it and in any case within one month from the receipt of claims completed in all respect.


More over no evidence before us to prove that the 2nd opposite party has acted promptly for disbursing the amount. So we are of the opinion that there is some deficiency on the part of all opposite parties for which all of them are liable to compensate the complainant. No document is produced before us to show the date of application even though the complainant contended that he had applied during 1997. So for the sake of calculation we take the date from 1.1.1998. So the opposite parties are liable to give 12% interest for the amount of Rs.37, 000/- which was already disbursed on 12.10.2004, from 1.1.98 to12.10.04. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.2000/- as compensation and cost of these proceedings.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay 12% interest for the amount of Rs.37, 000/- from 1.1.1998 up to 12.10.2004 with Rs.2, 000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order under the provisions of consumer protection act.

Rajamma, Charuvila Puthen Veedu, Elamkulam
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Manager, K.Gopinathan Nair and Co.,Kalluvathukkal

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Othr
...........Respondent(s)






ORDER






The complainant was a cashew worker of the 1st opp.party company which is an establishment covered by EPF and MP Act 1952. The complainant commenced from service 1965 and was a member of the EPF in the year 1966 onwards and allotted the PF A/c. No.KR/1317/235. The 2nd op-opp.party has regularly deducted the required amount towards contribution from her salary and remitted to the PF without delay or default .


She retired from service on 17.1.1996 and after completing 25 years regular service from1.3.2007 to 15.11.1995 in the Family Pension Scheme and 3 months actual service in the 1995 monthly pension scheme. After retirement from service she applied for the Provident fund pension in 10-D form through the 2nd opp.party on 16.2.1996. Then she was intimated by the 1st opp.party she was not deserved to get the benefits under 1995 scheme as she was not a member of 1971Family Pension Fund Schemes. Hence she approached the 2nd opp.party but the 2nd opp.party made believe that he would soon clear off the liabilities or problems, if any, connected with the same.


Later on, she filed a petition before the Provident Fund Adalath conducted by the 1st opp.party dated 26.2.2007. She was heard personally in the Adalath and her application was rejected by the 1stopp.party. The complainant’s pensionery benefits under EPS 1995 was rejected with a reason that she was not a member of FPF Scheme 1971 and she had not exercised option for joining the EPS 1995 before settling her PF account. Which is not true.. The complainant never opted to join EPS 1995 nor made any contribution towards EPS 95 and EFP Scheme 1971 till her cessation of EPF membership. The scheme came into effect from 16.11.1995 with retrospective implementation from 1.4.1993.


Even though the complaint retired from her service after the pension scheme came into force she was not properly intimated about the benefits of the scheme by the opp.parties till she settled her account which is known to the 1st opp.party that the complainant is entitled to get the pension under 1995 and before settling withdrawal benefits. The cause of action of the complaint has arisen on 17.1.1996 the date of which the complainant retired from her service and on 27.3.2007, the date on which her application or pensionary benefits was rejected and on subsequent days and at Kollam where the 2nd opp.party is officiating which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence the complaint.



The 1st opp.party filed version contending as follows: Smt. Rajamma , EPF A/c. No.KR/1317/235 left service on 17.1.1996 as a Non-Employee’s Family Pension Scheme, 1971 member. Her EPF membership has ceased on 29.1.1997 when the final settlement of EPF account was effected. Therefore cause of action in this case arose on the day on which the final settlement of EPF account was effected ie. On 29.1.2007.


But the complaint is filed before this Forum after a long period of 10 years during 3/07 and hence the complaint is barred by period of limitation under Section 24 A of the CP Act 1986.The complainant never opted to join EPS 1995 nor made any contribution towards EPS 1995 and EFP Scheme 1971 till her cessation of EPF membership. He had filed a complaint No.KR/1317/2350710941 dt. 26.2.2007 before the Bavishyanidhi Sikahayat Nivaran Manch Adalath held at the Employees” Provident Fund Organization Kollam on 12.3.2007.


The competent authority under the EPF Act was verified the concerned file and found that she is ineligible to exercise option. The complainant Smt. Rajamma was an ex-employee of M/s. K. Gopinathan Nair Company, She joined EPF Scheme on 1.4.1963 with PF A/c. No.KR\1317/235. f As per the statutory return in EPF Form No.9 maintained by this opp.party the age of the complainant as on the date of joining EPF is 29 years. Her date of birth is taken as 1.4.1934.


She attained 58 years on 31.3.92 ie. Well before the introduction of EPS 1995.The complainant’s Employees’ Provident Fund membership has ceased on 29.1.2007 when final settlement of account was effected. Therefore the cause of action arose on 29.1.2007. But this complaint was filed after 10 years. No petition for condoning delay was filed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.



Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the pensionary benefits under the Eps 1995.

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

3. Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Exts.P1 toP3 are marked.

For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D4 marked



Points:



The case of the complaint is that she retired from service on 17.1.1996. She is eligible to get the pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995 as the pension scheme stands came into effect on 16.11.1995. The opp.party 1 contended that as the complainant was not a member in Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 and in Employees Pension Fund Scheme, she is not eligible to get pension. More over the complaint has settled her Pf amount on 29.1.1997. But the complaint is filed after a long period of 10 years hence the complainant is barred by period of limitation. The matter to be decided is whether the complainant is within the scheme of the EPS 1995.


As per Ext. D1 the 2nd opp.party had remitted contribution only to the complainant’s Employees Provident Fund account not contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971. The complainant neither opted to join EPS 1995 nor made any contribution under EFPS 1971 till cessation of her EPF membership. Next point the complainant withdrawal the Employ as provident fund amount on 29.1.1997 and thereby ceased membership in Employees Provident Fund in accordance with para 26-A of Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952.


As the complainant’s membership in EPF ceased on 29.1.1997 as per para 26 A of Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952, the present complaint is barred by period of limitation as under Sec. 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Ext.D5 shows that 1st opp.party had intimated to the complainant about her ineligibility. Hence from the whole evidence we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get pension.

Hi,

I am Selva Kumar from Chennai. I worked with a BPO in chennai which has a branch in Mumbai as well. They maintain my PF a/c in Mumbai Kandivili office. My company submitted my P claim form to the respective office on the 01st of June and the comncerned PF office has not completed the same yet.

As per my knowledge the Turn around time to complete a caim is 2 months and now its moer than that. Apart from this if i try the General Enquiry number to enquire the status of my PF they paick the call and are keeping the receiver aside. Now if we try to call them from 10am in the morning till 4pm the line is contineously busy as they are keeping the receiver aside for the entire day.

It is not a good thing to do by a Government Organization and i beleive so many other customers like me are trying to call them to get the status abut are not getting any response.

For your reference i Can give you the number that i try to call as well. They are 28692531/2292.

Request you to take necessary actions to resole this issue at the earliest

Dear Sir, I'm having my p.f a/c with Gurgaon office, Bearing a.c no Hr/Ggn/28434/26. its been long days ago since application have been sent for withdrawl but no result since i live in Jamshedpur (jharkhand) it is not easy for me to travel down to gurgaon there just for enquiry i mailed EPF office gurgaon several time but no answer recieved, as there is no online procedure still launched for gurgaon office to know the status i'm badly stucked. I've heard that few days back indian Gov. stated a statement that all P.f issues will be resolved by the concerning p.f commisioner within 30-45 days. but hats -off to the Govt.. & there Employees.

Please help me i need it badly.

Name- Preetesh Kumar
Employer- Value First messaging pvt. ltd. gurgaon
P.f No- Hr/Ggn/28434/26