BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA No. 95 OF 2016 AGAINST CC No.10 OF 2014

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I,HYDERABAD

   Between :

   The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,

   Employees Provident Fund Organization,

   Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,

   # 3-4-763, Barakatpura, Hyderabad – 500027.

   Rep. by its Asst. P.F. Commissioner – Legal,

   Mr. K.Sivalingam.                                                    …Appellant / Opposite Party

   AND :

Sri C.S.S.V. Prasad,

S/o. Ch.L.R.R.S.V. Prasad Rao,

Flat No# 202, Raghava Towers, Madeenaguda,

Hyderabad – 500049., R.R. District.                  …Respondent / Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant / Opposite Party       :    Mr. K.Raghuram Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent / Complainant  :     Party in Person

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla        …      President

&

Sri Patil Vithal Rao  …                  Member

Friday, the Thirtieth day of December

Two thousand Sixteen

Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).

                                                         ***

          The Respondent, while working as Senior Manager at ICSA (India) Ltd., Cybarabad, Hyderabad [for short, “the Employer”] during the period from 16.12.2010 to 31.03.2013, made contributions towards Provident Fund with the Appellant by way of deductions of Rs.2,100/- from his remuneration every month through the employer and that he also personally contributed equal monthly Rs.2,100/- towards the said fund.  Thus, the monthly contributions were of Rs.4,200/- during the period of employment.  At the time of full and final settlement of the Provident Fund, it was found that the employer failed to contribute for the months from March-2012 to September – 2012 and that contributed only Rs.2,100/- for the month of January – 2013 and that Rs.780/- for the  months of February and March-2013.  Therefore, the Appellant has settled the Provident Fund of the Respondent to the extent of the actual contributions received by it from his wages at the time of his retirement.

          The Respondent made repeated requests with the Appellant authority to recover the balance un paid contributions, from the employer and to settle the same towards his Provident Fund but as it was delayed, he approached the District Forum-I, Hyderabad ( for brevity “the District Forum”) for the said purpose and also sought compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- on the premise of the mental agony being faced by him on account of financial disturbances.

2.       The Appellant resisted the said claim before the District Forum on the grounds, interalia, that the Respondent was not a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the case was bad for nonjoinder of necessary party i.e., the employer, ICSA (India) Ltd., Hyderabad so also for misjoinder of the party i.e., the Appellant.  As per the Appellant, the employer did not pay the contributions for the period, referred above, and also failed to submit the ECR.

3.       The learned District Forum by the order dated 23.11.2015 in C.C.no.10/2014 held that the Respondent was a Consumer under the Act, 1986 in view of the legal proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 14.12.1999 in “Regional Provident Fund Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi” and directed the Appellant to pay to the Respondent a compensation of Rs.3,000/-.  This order is impugned in the present appeal. 

4.       The contention of the Appellant, in brief, is that, the District Forum has failed to consider that the claim was bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary party and that as the employer of the Respondent did not contribute towards Provident Fund during certain months and also did not submit the ECR, the Appellant was unable to settle the Provident Fund account of the Respondent in full and that however, on receipt of the balance contribution, it was duly settled.  Thus, the impugned order, as per the Appellant, is illegal as it was passed mechanically without considering the material facts placed on record and that as such liable to be set aside by allowing the present appeal.          

6.       Perused the material evidence on record, the impugned order, written arguments and heard both the learned counsel.

7.       Now the point for consideration is that:-

      Whether the impugned order is erroneous and illegal both on facts and law and that as such liable to be set aside ?

8. Point:- The Respondent, being a member of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, was covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 during the period of his employment from 16.12.2010 to 31.03.2013.  The Appellant is a statutory authority to enforce the said statute.  When it was found that the Respondent’s employer has failed to make contributions for the period from March 2012 to September 2012, in full, and for the months of January-2013 to March, 2013, in part, as stated supra, the Appellant has, evidently, taken steps and got the said contributions recovered from the employer and released invour of the Respondent during the pendency of the C.C.no.10/2014.  The Respondent has admitted this fact in his evidence affidavit before the District Forum and also in his written arguments, Para no.2, in this appeal.  As per his version, the full and final settlement was done by the Appellant on 07.07.2015 when the case was posted for arguments before the District Forum.  Inview of this fact it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant.  But the learned District Forum has failed to consider this aspect in a right perspective.  Further, it has also erred in considering the fact that the case was not only bad for misjoinder of the Appellant but also bad for nonjoinder of necessary party i.e., the employer of the Respondent.  No doubt on account of the delay in full and final settlement of the Provident Fund account,  the Respondent must have suffered mental agony and financial hardships but for that the Appellant cannot be held responsible for the simple reason that undisputedly it took coercive steps in recovering the arrears of the contributions from the employer and settling the claim of the Respondent at the earliest possible.  In this view of the matter, we hold that the impugned order is erroneous and illegal, both on facts and in the eye of law, and that as such liable to be set aside by allowing the present appeal.

9.         The point is answered accordingly.

10.       In the result, the appeal is allowed but in the peculiar circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.

PRESIDENT    MEMBER 

Dt.30.12.2016