Complaint filed on: 13-01-2022

                                                Disposed on: 27-07-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

#201, 202, 1^st Floor, Indian Red Cross Building Complex,

Ashoka Road, Tumakuru-572 101. 

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF JULY 2022

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A. L.L.B,(Spl.) LADY MEMBER

CC.No.6/2022

Sri. A. Nagaraju S/o Late Halappa,

A/a 64 years, Devarajbetta Village,

Mugadalabetta Post, Pavagada Taluk,

Tumakuru District.

…………..Complainant

(By Sri.D.V Lakshminarayana., Advocate)

V/s

1.       The Manager

          PCA&RD Bank Ltd.,

          Pavagada, Tumkur District.

2.       The Provident Fund Commissioner,

          Provident Fund Sub Regional Office,

          15^th Cross, Near SIT, Tumkur Town.

3.       The Member Secretary,

          Common Cadre Committee,

          Kaskard Bank Ltd. Builidng,

          Bengaluru.

……….Opposite Party/s

(OP Nos. 1 & 3 By Sri.T.Obalesh., Advocate)

(OP No.2 By Sri.T.K.Jayaram., Advocate)

:ORDER:

BY KUMARA, N, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service against the OPs and prays to direct the OPs to pay Rs.52,883/- along with interest @ 12% and further prays to direct the OPs to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5, 000/- towards costs and such other reliefs. 

2. The case of the complainant is that he was a permanent employee of PCA & RD Bank.  It is further case of the complainant that from 01.10.1982 while he was discharging duty, the OP No.1 remitted his PF premium and Employer premium i.e. OP No.1 of Rs.5,946/- to the OP No.3 in the year 1997 when there was non-allotment of PF Code.     

3.       It is further case of the complainant that he was retired on 31.05.2017 and after retirement he wrote a letter on 29.06.2017 to OP No.3 and requested to pay the amount with interest, for that, the OP No.3 wrote a letter to the complainant stating that cheque No.121869 dated:24.09.1997 for Rs.5,946/- was sent to his PF Code No.KN19522 and asked the complainant to contact the P.F. Office regarding interest details.  Accordingly, the complainant approached the PF office and get the statement for Rs.34,118/- and thereafter requested the OP No.1 through letter dated:12.08.2017 by enclosing the said statement and requested to pay the amount with interest.  But the OP1 did not pay the amount with interest even receipt of the said letter and legal notice dated: 03.01.2022.  Hence, filed this complaint. 

4. After the complaint registered, Notice served to OP No 1 to 3, Sri Sri. T. Obalesh and Sri.T.K.Jayaram Advocates filed power to on behalf of OP No 1 and 2 respectively and OP NO 2 counsel filed IA along with affidavit, and filed their versions. OP No 3 Notice served, but remained absent, hence placed Ex parte.

5. on 05 – 04-2022, Sri. T. Obalesh advocate for the OP No 1 filed Power to OP No 3 along with application under order 9 Rule 7 to set aside ex parte order and the complainant filed objections to not to consider as already 45 days completed after the notice served, hence after hearing both the side version of OP No 3 not considered.

6. The OP No.1 in his version has admitted that the complainant was an Employee of their Department and was retired on 31.05.2017 and the complainant was obtained all the benefits as per the norms of the Bank and now the complainant filed the present complaint without any basis and without any documentary evidence.  The OP No.1 denied other allegations made against him in the complaint.   On these among other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.   

7. The OP No.2 in his version contended that the complainant was an employee of M/s Pavagada Taluk Primary Co-op Agricultural Rural Development Bank Ltd having PF code number PY/PNY/19528 was covered under section 1(3) (b) of the EPF and MP Act 1952 w.e.f. 01.05.1996.  The OP No.2 further contended that the OP No.3 credited Rs.5,946/- towards PF Contribution to KN/19522/06, but the same provident fund account number does not pertains to the complainant.  Further, upon verification it is noted that the claim made by the petitioner in connection to non compliance/credit of Rs.5,946/- towards PF contribution is not valid since the said contribution was accounted in reference to the returns submitted by the employer for Rs.1,24,962/- for the past accumulation i.e. from 1982.  The details of the same are shown below:

While complying annual accounts for the year 1997-98, an amount of Rs.2210/- and Rs.3736/- has been added to the Employee and Employer contributions respectively (Total Rs.5,946/-) and the same was added to the Opening Balance (EE Share:3510/- and ER Share: 0/-) of that year.  Hence, the claim made by the complainant is not tenable, incorrect and false.

8. The OP No.2 further contended that as per Section 7A(2) of EPF and MP Act 1952, the officer conducting the inquiry under sub-section(1) shall for the purpose of such inquiry have the same powers vested in a court under the CPC 1908.   But the complainant has never approached the OP and briefed the matter to the authority concerned, who is legally entitled to conduct the enquiry under the statute.  Hence, without exhausting the legal provisions entitled as per EPF and MP act 1952, he has approached the Hon’ble Forum with misleading the facts.  On these among other grounds it is prayed to   dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2.

9.       The complainant filed his affidavit evidence with 8 documents, which were not marked. The OP No. 2 counsel filed their affidavit evidence along with two documents, which were marked as Ex.2 & 3. The OP No 1 counsel not filed affidavit evidence, in spite of the sufficient time.

10.     We have heard the arguments of complainant and OP No. 1 to 2.  The complainant also filed written arguments.

11. On hearing the arguments of both sides and perusal of the documents, the points would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

2. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?
12.      Our findings aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: In the partly affirmative  

Point No.2: In the partly affirmative for the below         

-:REASONS:-

Point Nos.(1) & (2):-

13.     On 16 – 02 - 2022, the OP No 2 counsel filed IA No 1, under order 7 rule 11(d) R/w section 151 of CPC, stating that defect complaint filed by the complainant by coating PF Ac No KN/19522/06, which was not relevant to the complainant, as per the section 7 A (2) of EPF and M – P Act 1952. The complainant filed objections, stating that said PF account No KN/19522/06 was given by the OP No 3 by its reply, accordingly complaint filed and prays to consider OP No 2 as a formal party, after hearing from the both the side said IA No 1 disposed off and continued OP No 2 as a formal party.

14.     The complainant argued that, in response to the complainant letter, the OP No 3 replied in his letter dated 31-07-2017 as, your PF amount of Rs 5946-00, transferred to the OP No 2, i.e., PF account No KN/ 19522/06 vide cheque No 1869/24 dated 24-09-1997, accordingly complainant enquired with the OP No 2, and OP No 2 denied the said account No. The act of the OP No 3, leads to deficiency in service, and prayed to allow the complaint and award compensation.    

15.     OP No 1 counsel argued that complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable, as alleged by the complainant that Rs.5, 946/- not credited to his PF account, said amount of Rs 5,946 (Employee and Employer contribution) paid to the EPF Commissioner, Bangalore and in turn the same credited to the PF Account NO.195228/06 of Pavagada PCA&RD Bank. Further submitted that the complainant was retired on 31.05.2017 and settled the P.F. amount along with interest, which was accrued in his P.F.A/c NO.195228/06 and the interest claimed by the complainant on Rs.5, 946/- between 26.09.1997 to 31.05.2017 is not correct which was already included in the amount, which was received by the complainant after his retirement, and even though the complainant filed this complaint after lapse of five years.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint against OP No 1 and 3.

16.     The OP No 2 counsel argued that, the  PF account No KN/ 19522/06 was not related to the complainant, and complainant PF AC no is 195228/06 of Pavagada PCA&RD Bank, i.e. OP No 1, who was the employer of the complainant. Further submitted that, as disputed by the complainant, the PF amount of Rs.5, 946/- between 26.09.1997 to 31.05.2017 not accounted to his PF account, the learned counsel for the OP No 2, submits that said amount received by the OP No 2 from the OP No 3, and same was accounted in the complainant PF account No KN/ 195228/06, hence prayed to dismiss complaint against OP No 2.

17.     The documents, Ex.2 & 3, which were submitted by the OP No 2, revels that, in Sr No 6, of the document, Rs.5, 946-00  paid by the OP No 3, to the OP No 2, in turn the OP No 2 accounted and credited to the complainant PF account No 195228/06 of his employer, Pavagada PCA&RD Bank.

18. In this case, the complainant was the employee of the OP No 1, and OP No 3 was, head office of the OP No 1 and the OP No 2 was the PF office. The complainant worked since 01-10-1982 with the OP No 1 and retired on 31-05-2017. The complainant approached the OP No 3, regarding the PF amount of Rs.5, 946/- for the period between 26.09.1997 to 31.05.2017, not credited and accounted to his PF account and OP No 3 replied to the complainant in its letter dated, 31-07-2017 as, your PF amount of Rs 5946-00, transferred to the OP No 2, i.e., PF account No KN/ 19522/06 vide cheque No 1869/24 dated 24-09-1997. The complainant served legal notice dated 01-01-2022 before filed this complaint. The complaint filed this complaint with the intention that his said PF amount transferred to the unclaimed PF amount. It’s the duty of the OP No 3 and OP No 1 to clarifies and solve the matter, as its employee seeks clarification on retired benefits, but the OP No 3, even though given, wrong PF account No KN/ 19522/06 instead of PF account No 195228/06, in its reply to the complainant and even after the legal notice served not clarified and not updated the complainant in this regard, which leads to the deficiency / negligence on the part of OP No 3.in the above discussion, we are in the opinion of, the complainant compelled to approach this commission, and it’s appropriate to award Rs 5000=00 towards compensation and cost.

:ORDER:

The complaint filed by complainant is allowed in part.  

The OPs 1 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay 5000-00 (Rs      

 five Thousand only) to the complainant.

The above order shall be complied by the OPs 1 & 3 within 30 days from the date of the receipt/knowledge of the order; otherwise Rs 100-00 per day till the date of payment.    

Supply free copy of this order to both parties