SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction against opposite parties1 to 3to pay the entire provident fund contribution, insurance benefit and other benefits of deceased Ranish Ravindran’s to the complainant and 4^th respondent equally along with  compensation and cost for the  deficiency of service on their part.

  The case of the complainant in brief :

  The complainant’s husband Ranish Ravindran was no more on 3/8/2015 due to cardiac arrest, while he was working as a software engineer under 1^st OP(ID No.104292).  He was also employed at 2^nd OP(ID No.00527307) prior to his employment at 1^st OP.  After the death of complainant’s husband, the complainant and the deceased Ranish Ravindran’s mother K.K.Sulochana(OP.No.4) approached Ops1&2 for the purpose of knowing his benefits under the provident fund, insurance and other benefits.  When the complainant enquired the  benefits, 2^nd OP told the complainant that whatever may be the amount eligible to the complainant and 4^th OP would be transferred to 1^st OP and after consolidating the benefits it will be disbursed to the complainant and 4^th respondent by 3^rd OP.  The complainant approached several times to Ops 1&3 to know the progress of paper work and as directed by the Ops 1to 3.  But the Ops1&2 was no proper response regarding the payment of the benefits to the legal heirs.  The Ops 1 to3 offered that the total amount to be disbursed to the complainant and 4^th OP to the earliest time.  Then the complainant again approached the Ops 1 to 3’s office several times for the same grievance.  Thereafter on 15/6/2017 the complainant send lawyer notice to Ops 1 to 3 . They received the notice and no reply to  complainant.  Before filing complaint the complainant  again on 8/8/2017  send  notice to  Ops 1to 3, Ops 2&3 also received the notice.  But no reply.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops 1 to 3.  Hence the complaint.

           After filing the complaint, notice was issued to opposite parties 1to 3.  Opposite parties 1 to 3  received the notice and not appearance before the commission and not filed any version.  Hence  the commission proceed to  dispose  the case on merit.

    Eventhough the opposite parties remains  ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by them against the opposite parties.  Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.  The complainant adduced her  evidence by submitting her chief  affidavit in lieu of her chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint.  Ext.A1to A11 documents were also marked  on her part. The complainant was examined as PW1.   So the opposite parties  remain absent in this case.  At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.

       Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents  of the  complainant.  Ext.A1 is the  lawyer notice issued by complainant to Ops 1to3 dtd.15/6/2017,  Exts.A2 to A4(a) are the postal receipt and acknowledgment received by the Ops.  Thereafter the complainant again issued reminder notice to Ops 1to3 dtd.8/8/17.  The notice was also received by Ops 2&3 ,ie, marked as Exts.A6 to A8.  Thereafter on 9/10/2017 the complainant issued a letter under the Right Information Act marked as Exts.A10 and postal receipt marked  as Ext.A11.  It is clearly shows that the Ops 1 to 3  are well aware of the complainant’s hunband  Ranish Ravindran’s benefits under  the provident fund, insurance and other benefits. There is deficiency of service  on their part .  The Ops are directly  bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant and 4^th OP.   It is an evident  before the commission  that the complainant andOP.NO.4 caused much mental agony and  hardship.  Therefore we hold that the Ops 1 to 3  are directed to pay  the entire provident fund  contribution, insurance benefit and any other  benefits of deceased Ranish Ravindran’s legal heirs ,ie, the complainant and 4^th  respondent equally along with Rs.45,000/- as compensation and Rs.9000/- as litigation cost.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3  to pay  the entire provident fund  contribution, insurance benefit and any other  benefits of deceased Ranish Ravindran’s legal heirs,ie, the complainant and 4^th  respondent equally along with Rs.45,000/- as compensation and Rs.9000/- as litigation cost. within  30 days  of  receipt  of the order,   failing which the   complainant shall be  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-  lawyer notice dtd.15/6/17

A2-postal receipt(3 in Nos.)

A3-Postal acknowledgment by 1^st OP

A4,4(a) - postal acknowledgment by 3^nd &2^nd OP l

A5-Unserved notice (2^nd OP)

A6-lawyer notice dtd.8/8/17

A7-postal receipt (3 in Nos.)

A8-acknowledgent by 3^rd OP

A9- unserved notice  of 1^st OP

A10- letter copy issued to RT Act

A11- postal receipt

Sd/                                                            Sd/                                                                      Sd/

PRESIDENT                                               MEMBER                                                        MEMBER

Ravi Susha                      Molykutty Mathew.                            Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                                       /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                                  SENIOR SUPERINTENENT