1.      These two Revision Petitions No.395 and 396 of 2022 have been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘the Act’) by the Petitioner/OP-3 & 4 against the orders dated 23.11.2021, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (State Commission) in FA Nos. 1028 and 1091 of 2019 respectively. Vide Order dated 23.11.2021, the State Commission dismissed the said Appeals of the Petitioner/ OP-3 & 4 and affirmed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-III (“District Forum”) Orders dated 21.08.2019 in Consumer Complaint Nos.1628/2012 (Old No.382/08) & Order dated 17.09.2019 in C.C. No.506/2012 (Old No.538/10) respectively wherein both the complaints filed by the Respondent No.1/Complainant were allowed.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 35 days in filing the present Revision Petitions. As the delay occurred during the suspended period of limitation due to Covid-19, the Revision Petitions are treated to have been filed within limitation. Accordingly, I.A. No.3198 and 3201 of 2022 are disposed of.

3.      The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 in R.P. No.396/2022 has filed an application for the impleadment of the Legal Heirs of the deceased Respondent No.1, Satya Prakash Goyal, who passed away on 22.12.2022. The counsel has submitted the death certificate of the deceased along with the amended Memo of Parties. The Application was allowed and the amended Memo of Parties has been taken on record, and the legal heirs of the deceased Respondent No.1 are now part of the proceedings.

4.      Since the facts and questions of law involved in both Revision Petitions are substantially similar, except for minor variations in dates and events, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. For ease of reference, R.P. No.395 of 2022 is considered as the lead case, and the facts presented below are drawn from Consumer Complaint No. 1628/2012 (Old No.382/08).

5.      For convenience, the parties are being referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

6.      Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that the Complainant, Ajay Kumar Ahluwalia, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (OPs) as regards non-payment of Provident Fund interest and arrears. The Complainant retired as General Manager of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (RSMML) and claimed that he was entitled to Provident Fund benefits as per the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, but the amount due to him was not paid in full. He was initially employed at Rajasthan State Industrial & Mineral Development Corporation Ltd (RIMDCL) from 1972 - 1976. Following an order by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated 12.03.1976 employees of RIMDCL were covered under the Provident Fund (PF) scheme. A further order dated 14.01.1977 confirmed that mining units, including the one where the Complainant was served, were covered under the Provident Fund Act from 01.04.1971.  After the partition of RIMDCL, the Complainant's services were transferred to Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation Limited (RSMDC), which later merged with RSMML on 20.02.2003.  He alleges that while he was entitled to PF benefits from 01.04.1971, he was only paid Rs. 11,952, while his actual entitlement was Rs. 97,373 with interest from 01.02.1974. He claims interest was only provided from 01.07.1997, which he disputes.  Being aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

7.      OP - 1 & 2 Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd (RSIDICL) contended that the Complainant does not fall under the category of a 'consumer' as defined under the Act and that they are not responsible for making PF payments. The delay in filing the complaint makes it time-barred. The OP - 3 & 4/Petitioners (RSMML and its Provident Fund Trust) argued that the Complainant does not qualify as a consumer, and there has been no deficiency in their services. They claimed that the full PF amount, including employer and employee contributions, was paid to him. Any interest beyond 01.07.1997 is not payable as per the rules. The Forum has no jurisdiction over the matter, and the case should be heard in Udaipur, where RSMML is located.

8.      The District Forum in its Order dated 21.08.2019 partly allowed the complaint with the following observations:

“Order

    So partly allowing the Complaint of Complainant against the Opponent Nos. 3 & 4 order is given to Opponent Nos. 3 & 4 to make payment, adjusting the amount earlier paid to Complainant against the amount of their contribution from year 1973-1974, to 1976-1977 and to give simple interest at the rate of twelve percent, per annum or making calculation of Interest under rule 35 of R.S.M.M. Limited, from date on which the amount has become so due till the date of its actual payment. At the same time, the Complainant is entitled to get payment of Rs.25,000/- for his mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000/- [Five Thousand] as expenses of litigation. For compliance of this order, the time of one month is given. In case of not compliance of this order within this period, the Complainant will be entitled to get payment of simple Interest @9% per annum against the amount for said mental pain and litigation cost from today the date of passing of this order up to date of actual payment.)”                       (Extracted from translated copy)

9.      Being aggrieved by the District forum order, the Petitioner/ OP3&4 filed Appeal No.1028/2019 and F.A. No.961/2019 filed by the Complainant and the State Commission vide Order dated 23.11.2021 dismissed both the Appeals and affirmed the Order of the District Forum, with following observations:

11.  Made consideration on contentions presented on behalf of both parties and judicial precedents made available on record.

12. From facts of matter and evidence made available on record, it is clear that, the Complainant has worked in Rajasthan State Industrial and Mineral Development Corporation Limited during period from year 1972 to 1976 at Degana Project of Corporation. Due to posting of Complainant/ Respondent No.-01 in Mineral Units his service was transferred in R.S.M.D.C. Limited. From date 20.02.2003 Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited was merged in Opponent No.- 03. The Complainant retired from said Corporation from date 30.06.2006.

13.      Learned advocate of Appellant has submitted that, the Complaint of Complainant is beyond limitation period. By learned Dist. Consumer Forum on basis of this preliminary objection of Appellants making hearing of all parties on the date of 01.08.2018 treating the Complaint of Complainant beyond limitation period, the same was dismissed. Against the dismissal order by Complainant First Appeal No. 648/ 2018 was filed before Rajasthan State Commission, by which vide its judgment dated 26.02.2018 setting aside the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by learned Dist. Consumer Forum, treating the Complaint of Complainant within limitation period, the record was remanded back to learned Dist. Consumer Forum for deciding the same on its merit. Against Judgment dated 26.02.2018 of Hon'ble Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, no Revision Petition was filed by Appellants in Hon'ble National Commission for Consumer Dispute Redressal. So clearly Complaint of Complainant / Respondent No.-01 is within limitation period.

14. Here it is pertinent to mention that, the Complainant has retired from his service on the date of 30.06.2006 and benefit of PF and Pension are payable at the time of retirement. In such situation, in present matter cause of action is raised on the date of 30.06.2006 and it continued up to payment of amount of PF amount to the Complainant. It cannot be held that cause of action was accrued to Complainant prior to date of his retirement i.e. prior to the date of 30.06.2006, because the right to get amount of Provident Fund and Pension benefits does not raise prior to date of retirement. The Complainant presented the Complaint on the date of 19.03.2008 before learned Dist. Consumer Forum, which is within period of limitation. The facts described in judicial precedents presented on behalf of Appellants in context of limitation period are not matched with facts of present matter. So these judicial precedents presented on behalf of Appellants are not beneficial to them. So this objection raised by learned advocate of Appellants is substance less.

15. Learned advocate of Appellant has submitted that, the Complaint of Complainant does not fall within the jurisdiction of learned Dist. Forum, because Complainant does not fall in category of Consumer. Since In view of learned Dist. Forum, Complainant does not fall in category of 'Consumer', disposal of his Complaint is not possible by way of summary trial. So the learned Dist. Consumer Forum, accepting such objections raised by Opponents dismissed the Complaint of Complainant on the date of 03.08.2015. So against this judgment Appeal No. 1071/2015 was presented before Rajasthan State Commission, which has held that, Complainant fall in category of 'Consumer' and his Complaint fall within jurisdiction of learned Dist. Forum. So Rajasthan State Commission, issued direction to of learned Dist. Consumer Forum for disposal of Complaint of Complainant on its merit. Against Judgment dated 02.06.2016 of Hon'ble Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, no Revision Petition was filed by Appellants in Hon'ble National Commission Redressal for So Consumer clearly Dispute Complaint of Complainant / Respondent No.-01 is within Jurisdiction of learned Dist. Consumer Forum. In view of Dist. Consumer Forum, the provision of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is "In addition to". In this context, section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is as follows:-

3. Act not in derogation of any other law: -

‘The Provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force'.

16.      Here, it is pertinent to mention that, Complainant/ Respondent No.-01 does not fall in category of government employee and service of Provident Fund Scheme is 'Service as per section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as per section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 member fall in definition of 'Consumer. In this context, a judicial precedent held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of AIR 2000 SC 331- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi is relevant. So this objection of Appellants is found substance less that, the Complaint of Complainant / Respondent. No.-01 is not within jurisdiction of Dist. Consumer Forum.

17. From facts of matter and evidence on record, it also appears that, by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur, passing the order on the date of 12.03.1976, it is mentioned that, to the Employees working In Corporation, the benefit of Provident Fund Deduction shall be given under Provident Fund Act, 1952. Against this order, by R.I.M.D.C. Appeal was preferred before Ministry of Labour of the Government of India, New Delhi, which was dismissed on the date of 14.01.1977 and this order was passed that, all Mining Units from date 01.04.1971 shall fall under Provident Fund Act. Against the order dated 14.01.1977 by RIICO Appeal was preferred in Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 31.10.1995. So it is clear that, all mining Units from date 01.04.1971 fall under Provident Fund. By Dist. Consumer Forum, In Its judgment under challenge, making detailed discussion of facts and evidences, it is held that, since Provident Fund Scheme was enforced from date 01.04.1971, the contribution of Employer had become payable preliminary from 1971-72 to 1976-77 and interest is also payable on contribution of Employer of this period. In this context, in Section 70 of said Act, provisions are mentioned as follows:-

  "Interest payable by the Employer- The Employer shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve percent, per annum or at such higher rate as may be specified in the scheme on any amount due from him under this Act, from date on which the amount has become so due, till the date of its actual payment:

  Provided that higher rate of Interest specified in the scheme shall not exceed the lending rate of interest charged by any scheduled bank."

  Thus from perusal of this legal provision, it Is clear that, the Employer is bound to give simple interest at the rate of twelve percent, per annum or at such higher rate as may be specified in the scheme on any amount due, from such date, on which it became due and up to date of actual payment.

18. In Appeal No. 961/ 2019 by Appellant/ Complainant demand is made of his contribution for the period from year 1973-74 to 1976-77 and Interest payable thereon. In view of Commission, admittedly by Commission no such contribution is made and this contribution is used by Complainant himself. By Complainant, no proposal was given before Appellants for getting deduction of his contribution and such amount of contribution cannot be deducted from subsequent salary of employees and previous salary was wholly received by Complainant. In such situation, the Complainant is not entitled to get his contribution and interest payable thereon.

19. Made consideration on judicial precedents made available on record by Appellants on other points, besides the point of limitation. Since the facts of these judicial precedents are different from facts of present matter, these judicial precedents are not helpful to Appellants.

20. Through judgment in question, learned Dist. Consumer Forum has awarded the deduction of Provident Fund of contribution of Employer for the period from year 1973-74 to 1976-77 and Interest thereon. But the Complainant is not held entitled to get contribution of Provident Fund of Complainant of said period and interest payable thereon.

21.  By learned Dist. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jaipur making detailed discussion of facts and evidences available on record, the judgment under Appeal is passed, there is no ground on record to make Interference in said judgment. So both Appeals presented are found liable to be dismissed.

Order

    The Appeal No. 1028/2019 presented by Appellants - Opponent Nos. 3 & 4 and Appeal No.- 961/2019 presented by Appellant / Complainant is dismissed and judgment dated 21.08.2019 passed by learned Dist. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jaipur Third, Jaipur in Complaint No. 1628/2012 [Old No.- 382/2008] Ajay Kumar Ahluwalia vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment, Corporation Limited, and others is confirmed/ upheld.”

(Extracted from translated copy)

10.    Being dissatisfied by the Order dated 23.11.2021 of the State Commission, the Petitioner/OP-3 & 4 filed this Revision Petitions.

11.    The learned counsel for the Petitioners (OP-3 & 4) reiterated the key arguments presented both in the Reply submitted to the District Forum and the Memo of Appeal filed before the State Commission. Additionally, these points were reiterated in the current Revision Petitions. The counsel argued that according to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant does not qualify as a consumer, and therefore the complaint should not be entertained under the Act. He further contended that the orders passed by both the District Forum and the State Commission were argued to be without jurisdiction, suggesting that neither body had the authority to decide the matter. He further contended that the complaint was time-barred, meaning it was filed beyond the legally permissible time frame, making it ineligible for consideration. He further argued that both the District Forum and the State Commission had committed significant legal errors by incorrectly applying the law to the facts of the case. He asserted that the orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission were not aligned with the principles of justice. Based on these arguments, the Petitioner sought to have the Revision Petitions allowed and requested that the orders of the lower fora (District Forum and State Commission) be set aside.

12.    Per contra, the Counsel for Respondent No.1/ Complainant urged the Commission to dismiss both Revision Petitions, emphasizing that the findings of the lower fora were valid and there was no reason to disturb them. Additionally, he requested that the Revision Petitions be dismissed with costs. The learned Counsel for Respondents No.2 and 3 (OP-1&2) also argued that no liability had been imposed upon them by the lower fora. Therefore, he requested for dismissal of the Revision Petitions against Respondents No.2 & 3.

13.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for both the parties.

14.    After a thorough perusal of the orders passed by both the Fora, it is evident that the issues concerning jurisdiction, limitation, and the award, including the quantum of compensation, have already been addressed and decided in favor of the Complainant and against the Petitioners/OP-3 & 4. The Petitioners/OP-3&4 have not raised any new or substantial grounds in these Revision Petitions that would warrant reconsideration of the matters already decided by both the fora. The District Forum issued a detailed and well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. After due consideration of pleadings and arguments, the State Commission passed a detailed and well reasoned order dismissing the Appeals.

15.    It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act, 2019 confers limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings with detailed and well-reasoned orders. Thus, the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

16.    In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2022 dated 21.01.2022 held:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

17.    Similarly, in a recent order the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

18.    Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petitions No.395 and 396 of 2022 and the same are therefore, Dismissed.

19.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

20.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.