Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/91/2019

Gajanand Sharma s/o Late Shri Har Sahai Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

Gajanand Sharma

22 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 91/2019

 

Gajanand Sharma s/o Late Harsahai Sharma r/o Above Shop No. 18, Bees Dukan, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur

Vs.

 

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nidhi Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 22.3.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.K.K.Bagri-Member

 

Mr. Mahendra Sharma on behalf of the appellant

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This appeal is filed against the judgment of the District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 8.1.2019 whereby the complaint of the appellant is dismissed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he was the nominee hence, amount of provident fund lying with the respondents of deceased Ramswaroop Sharma should be paid to him and asking of succession certificate is deficiency on the part of the respondents.

 

Heard the brother of appellant and perused the impugned judgment.

 

The contention of the appellant is that Ramswaroop Sharma was his brother. He was unmarried, not having any family. Nomination was made in his favour hence, he is entitled to have the amount of provident fund.

 

The Forum below has rightly held that there is no evidence to the effect that appellant is the nominee of Ramswaroop Sharma. The respondent has stated that record of the office was burnt on 4.4.2013 hence, no nomination in

3

 

favour of the appellant is with them. The appellant could not submit any other evidence to show that he is nominee of the deceased Ramswaroop Sharma.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that Ramswaroop Sharma was not having any family hence, he is entitled for the amount. Admittedly as per contention of the appellant he is brother of the deceased. It has been stated that the deceased was unmarried but to prove this fact no documentary evidence has been submitted. Taken it to be true that the deceased was unmarried but as per definition of Employees' Provident Fund Scheme the family also consist father and mother of the member and there is no evidence to the effect that on the day of death of the member Ramswaroop Sharma the father and mother of the deceased were not alive.

 

Much has been said about rule 61 and 70 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme. As per rule 61 the nomination could be only in favour of the family and admittedly the appellant do not fall under the category of family as defined under the scheme. The appellant has also relied upon rule 33 and 34 of the Scheme which also deals

4

 

regarding declaration by the member but as stated earlier no declaration of the deceased has been submitted by the appellant and it was not available with the respondent as record has been burnt.

 

As per rule 61 of the Scheme nomination in favour of the person not belonging to the family is invalid and appellant by any stretch of imagination could not be covered under the definition of family. Hence, the claim has rightly been dismissed.

 

The appellant has relied upon AIR 1981 Cal. 283 Mamta Sen Vs. LIC of India where the appellant was nominee and the High Court was rightly of the opinion that he need not obtain the succession certificate but here in the present case there is no evidence to the effect that the appellant is the nominee of the deceased member.

 

Further reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hyderabad State Commission in F.A. No. 838/2011 Daggubati Raghava Rao Vs. LIC of India where change of nomination was entered by the employer in 2005 whereas the

5

 

insured died in 2010 which are not the facts in the present case. Per contra no nomination has been entered in favour of the appellant in the present matter.

 

Further reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 844/2014 Sumitra Godara Vs. LIC of India where wife of the deceased was also nominee hence, the claim was found payable to her which is not the case here.

 

Further reliance has been placed on judgment passed by Punjab State Commission in First Appeal No. 380/2017 Employees Provident Fund Vs. Prem Lata where change of nomination was received in 2013 and insured died in 2015 hence, the claim was found payable which is not the case here.

 

Further reliance has been placed on judgment passed by Punjab State Commission in First Appeal No.594/2014 Karnail Kaur Vs. manager (Deopt) FCI and the case relates to family pension which is not the issue here.

 

Further reliance has been placed on judgment passed by

6

 

Rajasthan High Court in D.B.Spl. Appl.Writ No. 136/2017 Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan where interpretation of rule 157 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules,1996 was under consideration which is not the case here.

 

Further reliance has been placed on AIR 1965 AP 200 Nazeena Traders Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund where the issue was whether employee is the member of the fund or not which is not the issue here.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and stands dismissed

 

(K.K.Bagri) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm