DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/142/2017

Date of Institution : 17.10.2017

Date of Decision : 08.07.2019

Urmil Garg aged 51 years wd/o Sh. Manoj Garg R/o H. No. B-14/1083, St. No. 1, Sekha Road, Barnala.   

…Complainant

Versus

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Urban Estate, PH-1, Near TV Tower, Bathinda (Punjab-151001) through Sh. K.K. Saini (Regional P.F. Commissioner-II), Bathinda.

2. Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd., Raikot Road, Barnala through CMD, Sh. Jangi Lal Oswal R/o B-83, The Mall, Ludhiana, Punjab.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Vinod Kumar Goyal counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Anuj Mohan Gupta counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. Rajinder Pal counsel for opposite party No. 2. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

3. Smt. Manisha : Member

 

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH PRESIDENT):

  The complainant Urmil Garg widow of Manoj Garg has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date) against The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bathinda and another. (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The brief facts of the present complaint as stated by the  complainant are that she is the widow of Manoj Garg who is consumer of opposite parties being an employee of Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd., Barnala and remained in service till his death and PF Account Number of Manoj Garg is PB/BTI/10116/25252. The provident fund of employees deducted by employer was got deposited with the opposite party No. 1 and each employee of opposite party No. 2 was linked with Employee's Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 and said scheme was applicable to each employees of opposite party No. 2 and all employees of opposite party No. 2 are covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The opposite party No. 2 used to deposit deductions of deceased Manoj Garg in his PF Account No. PB/BTI/10116/25252. 

3. It is further alleged by the complainant that she is widow of deceased Manoj Garg who worked in Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd Barnala from 30.7.1985 to 20.10.2015 till his death. Manoj Garg died during service on 20.10.2015. The complainant is the nominees of deceased Manoj Garg in records so she is entitled to receive all PF deposits/benefits/ pension benefits of her husband i.e. Provident Fund Accumulations of deceased Manoj Garg lying in PF. Complainant as nominee of Manoj Garg entitled to receive all assurance benefits of Rs. 6,00,000/- with interest under the Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 from the Employees Provident Fund Organization Bathinda.     

3. The complainant has alleged that she appeared on 27.7.2016 in proceedings under Section 7-A of EPF and MP Act, 1952 against Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. Barnala by opposite party No. 1 under PF Code No. PB/BTI/10116 and on appearance before the Assessing Authority for payment of her claims and requested them for payment and to extend the inquiry period under 7-A. The Assessing Authority extended the inquiry period to 06-2016 and directed the AEO to verify and check the records of opposite party No. 2 and said AEO after verification submitted his report that that during the verification it has been observed that the Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. Barnala is in default and not depositing PF and allied dues in respect of eligible employees for the period of inquiry i.e. 03/2014 to 06/2016. Moreover said establishment neither deposited contributions under Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme 1976 nor availed any security cover from any insurance company. Sh. KK Saini Regional PF Commissioner Bathinda on report assessed an amount of Rs. 47,16,146/- to be payable by opposite party No. 1 under Section 7-A against opposite party No. 2 for inquiry period and said amount includes benefits payable to deceased Manoj Garg regarding PF Account No. PB/BTI/10116/25252 up to October 2015. The complainant submitted her claim form under Employees Deposit Linked Scheme 1976 duly attested and verified by authorized signatory of Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 16.8.2017 but said claim was rejected by the said Commissioner vide order dated 22.8.2017 on the ground that EDLI contribution had not been deposited by employer. Non deposit of EDLI contribution by employer is an offence under Act and is illegal. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner wrongly rejected the claim of the complainant. A huge amount is always remain deposited in Deposit Linked Insurance Fund Account and opposite party No. 1 had to pay all claim of complainant from this account as the same is made for payments of benefits to employees but opposite party No. 1 illegally rejected the claim of the complainant which is deficiency in service on its part due to which complainant suffered mental pain and agony. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.- 

1) The opposite party No. 1 be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the complainant as assurance benefit as per EDLI Scheme, 1976 with interest till payment.     

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain.

3) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service. 

4) To pay Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.  

5) Any other relief to which this Forum deems fit.

4. Upon the service of notice the opposite party No. 1 appeared before this Forum and filed written reply taking preliminary objections on the grounds that complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party No. 1 is premature and complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. 

5. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 admitted that the complainant is the widow of Manoj Garg who was an employee of Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd., Barnala and he was allotted EPF No. PB/BTI/ 10116/25252. It is the duty of the establishment i.e opposite party No. 2 to deposit all the contributions relating to its employees as well as to the establishment with the opposite party No. 1 well within time but in the present case EDLI claim of the member was rejected due to that EDLI contribution was not deposited by the employer of the deceased and due to non depositing of the contributions the opposite party No. 1 initiated inquiry proceedings under Section 7-A against the establishment for non deposit of PF and allied dues and an amount of Rs. 47,16,146/- was assessed against the opposite party No. 2 including payable dues of Late Manoj Garg. After passing the order dated 13.7.2017 in the proceedings under Section 7-A of EPF and MP Act, 1952 recovery proceedings was started against the opposite party No. 2 and after tracing its bank account due procedure was adopted by the opposite party No. 1 and received due amount pertaining to deceased member Manoj Garg and accordingly EDLI claim of the deceased member Manoj Garg has been settled on 22.11.2017 for an amount of Rs. 3,41,040/-. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party NO. 1 and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

6. The opposite party No. 2 also appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections on the grounds that complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and she has not come to the Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Forum. The answering opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as alleged as there is no negligence on its part. 

7. On merits, it is admitted that the Late deceased Manoj Garg was the employee of the answering opposite party. Rest of the paras also admitted by the opposite party No. 2 but as far as default by opposite party No. 2 is concerned regarding payment is denied by it. The opposite party NO. 2 was to made payment under Deposit Link Insurance Scheme 1976 only Rs. 56,635/- inform D/D was deposit with Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bathinda under the provisions of PF Act. All the required deducted money and due money was deposited by opposite party No. 2 and last payment of Rs. 56,635/- was made on 14.11.2017 which he was liable to make and there is no default on their part and nothing is due towards opposite party No. 2 relating to this case. It is denied that on the direction of opposite party No. 2 opposite party No. 1 has rejected the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2. Lastly the opposite party No. 2 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs qua the answering opposite party.

8. The complainant in order to support her complaint has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1, copy of death certificate of Manoj Garg as Ex.C-2, copy of ID of Manoj Garg as Ex.C-3, copy of order of 7-A proceedings of PF Act passed by PF Commissioner Bathinda as Ex.C-4, copy of rejection letter of claim as Ex.C-5, copy of claim form as Ex.C-6, copy of gazette notification Ex.C-7, copy of bank statement of complainant as Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

9. The opposite party No. 1 in order to rebut the evidence of the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Yogesh Kumar Senior SSA as Ex.OP-1/1, authority letter dated 6.2.2018 as Ex.OP-1/2, copy of order dated 13.7.2017 as Ex.OP-1/3, copy of letter dated 27.7.2016 as Ex.OP-1/4, copy of letter dated 17.8.2017 as Ex.OP-1/5, copy of letter dated 5.9.2017 as Ex.OP-1/6, copy of letter dated 18.9.2017 as Ex.OP-1/7, copy of letter dated 19.9.2017 as Ex.OP-1/8, copy of letter No. 4227-28 dated 19.9.2017 as Ex.OP-1/9, copy of letter dated 18.10.2017 Ex.OP-1/10, copy of letter dated 16.11.2017 as Ex.OP-1/11, copy of letter as Ex.OP-1/12, copy of demand draft for Rs. 56,635/- as Ex.OP-1/13, copy of PF details as Ex.OP-1/14, copy of worksheet dated 22.11.2017 as Ex.OP-1/15 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Rachhpal Singh Authorized Person of opposite party No. 2 as Ex.OP-2/1 and closed the evidence. 

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record on file. Written arguments filed by the parties have also been gone through.

11. It is an admitted fact between the parties that Manoj Garg the deceased husband of the complainant was the employee of Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd., Barnala opposite party No. 2 having Provident Fund Account No. PB/BTI/10116/25252. It is also admitted fact that opposite party No. 2 used to deposit deductions from the salary of deceased Manoj Garg and deposited in his above mentioned Provident Fund Account. It is also admitted between the parties that said Manoj Garg died during his service on 20.10.2015 and Urmil Garg Complainant is nominee of her deceased husband and entitled to all PF benefits. It is also admitted by the complainant that during the pendency of the present complaint the opposite party No. 1 paid the amount of Rs. 3,41,040/- to her on 5.12.2017 which is also proved vide bank statement of complainant Ex.C-8. 

12. The main controversy now between the parties is that whether the opposite party No. 1 rightly paid the amount of Rs. 3,41,040/- or the complainant is entitled to more amount as alleged by her in her complaint ?

13. To prove her case the complainant tendered in evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1 in which she has reiterated all her case as mentioned in the complaint. The complainant for demanding the more amount mainly relied upon notification dated 24th May 2016 notified by Ministry of Labour and Employment Ex.C-7 in which at Clause 2 (1) (i) it is mentioned as under.-

“(i) the average monthly wages drawn (subject to a maximum of fifteen thousand rupees), during the twelve months preceding the month in which he died, multiplied by thirty times plus fifty percent of the average balance in the account of the deceased in the Fund or of a provident fund exempted under Section 17 of the Act or under paragraph 27 or 27 A of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme 1952 as the case may be during preceding twelve months or during the period of his membership, whichever is less, subject to a ceiling of one lakh and fifty thousand rupees, subject to a total ceiling of six lakh rupees.”

On the basis of this notification the complainant demanded the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the opposite party No. 1 as PF benefits of his deceased husband.

14. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 relied upon affidavit of  Yogesh Kumar SSA Ex.OP-1/1 in which he deposed that EDLI claim of the complainant was rejected due to the reason that EDLI contribution was not deposited by the employer of the deceased and there is no fault of opposite party No. 1 and as and when opposite party No. 2 paid their contribution the opposite party No. 1 paid the amount to the complainant on 22.11.2017 so delay is only on the part of opposite party No. 2 and not on the part of opposite party No. 1. 

15. To rebut the plea of the complainant that she is entitled to the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-, the opposite party No. 1 relied upon copy of  Worksheet dated 22.11.2017 Ex.OP-1/15 in which they have calculated the amount as per the rules of Employees Provident Fund Organization which reached to the tune of Rs. 3,41,040/- payable to the complainant and same was immediately paid to her only on 5.12.2017 which fact also admitted by the complainant vide bank statement dated Ex.C-8. The complainant has not tendered any document to rebut the worksheet Ex.OP-1/15 filed by the opposite party No. 1 and even she has not filed any calculation sheet to reach the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-. 

16. In regard to notification Ex.C-7, we are of the view that this notification is of dated 24th May 2016 whereas the deceased Manoj Garg died on 20.10.2015 and in this notification it is mentioned that subject to a total ceiling of six lakh rupees and not mentioned that the minimum ceiling of six lakh rupees, so in our view the opposite party No. 1 rightly paid the amount of Rs. 3,41,040/- to the complainant as per the rules. However, as the opposite party No. 1 paid this amount only after the filing of the present complaint on 17.10.2017 and unnecessarily dragged the complainant into unwanted litigation so on this account the opposite party No. 1 is deficient in providing service to the complainant.

17. In view of above discussion, this complaint is partly allowed as per above para against the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay the consolidated amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. Compliance of order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

  ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

8th Day of July 2019

 

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

           President

 

 

           (Tejinder Singh Bhangu)                Member

 

 

(Manisha)

Member