Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/291/2018

Parveen Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

                                                                             

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/291/2018
Date of Institution	:	20/06/2018
Date of Decision	:	04/09/2019

 

Parveen Gupta S/o Late Sh. Gian Chand Gupta, Resident of H.No.126, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh – 160047.

 

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), O/o Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Regional Office: SCO 4-7, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh – 160017.

 

[2]     Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, through authorized representative, Head Office: Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066.

 

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Gaurav Tangri, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

Per Dr.S.K.Sardana, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant was a member of Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme 1952 and was regularly contributing towards the provident fund, through his employer. The Complainant retired as Company Secretary of Haryana Tourism Corporation Limited, Chandigarh on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2013. In the year 1995, the Government of India introduced Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 for the members of the EPF w.e.f. 16.11.1995. The Complainant had opted for contributing towards the pension scheme as well, through his employer. After retirement, the Complainant was asked by the Opposite Parties to deposit certain amount of money for revising his pension. On 02.04.2018, the Complainant was asked to pay Rs.1,70,565/- by the Opposite Parties and the same was paid by the Complainant vide Demand Draft dated 12.04.2018 to the Opposite Parties under protest. Later the Opposite Parties refunded the aforesaid amount to the Complainant on 25.07.2018. The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Parties had retained the aforesaid amount, without any sanction/order of the competent authority, for a period of 3½ months and did not pay any interest accruing thereupon. The Complainant, eventually, approached the Opposite Parties to pay the interest, but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties have contested the complaint and filed their joint written reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that during a meeting held in ACC Zonal Office (Punjab & H.P) on 24.01.2018, it was decided by the local EPF authorities that necessary demand should be raised from the members for allowing them the benefit of the actual salary in the pension fund exceeding wage limit of either Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6500/- p.m. from the effective date respectively. In the meanwhile, on the above subject, the local EPF authorities had requested the competent authorities to issue necessary clarification with regard to the demand raised by them from the members of the EPF. However, since the local EPF authorities had not received any instructions/clarifications from the higher/competent authorities, hence they decided to refund the said money for which the demand was raised from the members of the EPF. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties.
7.         A meticulous appraisal of the documentary evidence available on record reveals that the demand of Rs.1,70,565/- was raised by the Opposite Parties from the Complainant without any order/sanction of the competent authority. Hence, we are of the concerted view that the amount of Rs.1,70,565/- was retained by the Opposite Parties illegally for a period of 3 ½ months.  It is pertinent to note here that the aforesaid amount was refunded by the Opposite Parties on 25.07.2018 during the pendency of the present Consumer Complaint which was instituted before this Forum on 20.06.2018. At any rate, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,70,565/- to the Complainant for the period the said amount remained with them. Non-payment of the interest on the aforesaid amount by the Opposite Parties, despite endeavours amounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice. 
8.         Pertinently, during the course of arguments, the Complainant had dropped the relief sought in para 29(a). The Opposite Parties are thus held liable to pay interest on the amount of Rs.1,70,565/- @ 9% p.a. from 12.04.2018 to 25.07.2018, along with compensation for causing mental harassment and deficient services rendered by them, besides payment of costs of present proceedings.   
9.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed:-

(i)     To pay int. @9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.1,70,565/- from 12.4.2018 to 25.7.2018 i.e. the duration the amount remained with Opposite Parties.

(ii)    To pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment.

(iii)   To pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [i] above from 12.04.2018 to 25.07.2018, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [ii] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No. (iii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
04/09/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”