State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dena Bank vs Ravinder Malik on 2 July, 2015
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision:02.07.2015 First Appeal- 703/2013 (Arising out of the order dated 22.03.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 119/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi) Dena Bank, Regional Office, 4th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building, 16, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001. Through Assistant General Manager ....Appellant Versus Shri Ravindra Malik, S/o Shri D.N. Malik, R/o.90-42/B, First Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110 017. ....Respondent CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Justice Veena Birbal, President This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") wherein challenge has been made to order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi (in short, "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 119/2010. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are as under:
The respondent was an officer of the appellant bank and was terminated from the services vide order dated 21.03.2002 on account of proved misconduct. At the time of termination, certain dues including Provident Fund were to be paid to him. It is stated that Provident Fund dues were paid to the respondent on 2.2.09 being Rs.2,53,352.47. On receipt of dues, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before District Forum demanding interest on the delayed payment of his Provident Fund dues. The respondent/complainant had alleged that appellant bank was liable to pay the dues within 30 days from the termination i.e. 21.3.02 under the provisions of Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It was alleged that Provident Fund dues were not given within the time stipulated under the aforesaid Act. The respondent/complainant also sent a legal notice dated 18.3.2009 demanding interest for the delayed payment of Provident Fund dues. Before the District Forum, respondent/complainant had made prayer for grant of interest @ of 12% per annum for the delay period for not paying his Provident Fund dues in time.
The appellant/OP contested the complaint by alleging therein that after termination, the respondent/complainant was required to submit his application for payment of amount accumulated in the Provident Fund with the details of his service with the Bank and also the amount payable to him in form No.1 and since the respondent did not complete the formalities, the Provident Fund dues could not be paid to him in time. It was alleged that delay had occurred due to fault on the part of respondent/complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant bank.
Both the parties had led evidence before the Ld. District Forum. After hearing Counsel for the parties and on relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Alok Shankar Pandey vs Union of India & Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 545, District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant bank to pay simple interest @ 9% p.a. from 21.03.2002 till date and also awarded Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses. The District Forum further ordered that in case the appellant bank did not make the above payment within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, the bank shall pay interest @ 18% per annum.
Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant bank has contended that Provident Fund dues were paid late because requisite formalities were not completed by the respondent/complainant. It is contended that as soon as the formalities were completed, the same were released on 2.2.09. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank. It is further contended that in any event, the Provident Fund dues of Rs.2,45,972/- had already been paid to the respondent on 2.2.09. In these circumstances, the District Forum was not justified in awarding the interest on principal amount of Provident Fund dues after 2.2.09.
On the other hand, the AR of the respondent has argued that the impugned order is legal and valid and does not require any interference.
We have heard the submissions made and gone through the material on record.
It is admitted position that the respondent/complainant was terminated from service of appellant bank on 21.03.2002 and Provident Fund dues were paid on 02.02.2009. There is delay of almost 7 years in releasing the Provident Fund dues to him.
The stand of the appellant is that the respondent/complainant did not fill up the requisite form due to which these dues could not be cleared. The stand of the respondent is that the appellant bank was required to supply him form No.1 and statement of Provident Fund amount accumulated on termination of his service for the purpose of completion of formalities. However, the same were never sent. It is not the stand of the appellant bank that the requisite form was sent to the respondent. The respondent/complainant had also sent legal notice dated 10.03.2008. Even thereafter appellant bank had taken about one year time in releasing the Provident Fund dues. Thus it can't be said that fault was on the part of the respondent. There is also nothing on record to show that appellant bank made any effort by calling the respondent/complainant for fulfillment of necessary formalities for releasing the amount. For the sake of arguments, even assuming the respondent/complainant did not complete the formalities for disbursal of Provident Fund dues, however on completion of formalities, the appellant bank became liable to pay interest from the day it became due till actual disbursement.
In the similar facts and circumstances, the National Commission in Bank of Baroda vs Sankari Devi, 2012(3) CPR 123 (NC) has held as under:
"8. It is true that till the completion of formalities, petitioner was not obliged to pay the amount towards provident fund but on completion of formalities, petitioner became liable to pay interest from the day it became due till actual disbursement. During all this period, the amount remained with the petitioner, which was utilized by it. Respondent was deprived of the use of that money. Supreme Court in Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. has held that interest is neither a penalty nor punishment but is a normal accretion on capital; that the person who thereon (which otherwise would have been earned by the person who was entitled to that amount), equity demands that the person who kept the money should pay the principal amount to the person to whom it is due with interest.
In view of above discussion, the Ld. District Forum has rightly held deficiency in service on the part of appellant bank in not releasing the Provident Fund dues.
The other contention of the Counsel for the appellant bank is that when the Provident Fund dues were cleared on 02.02.2009, in that event, no interest could have been awarded to him on the said amount after 02.02.2009.
It may be noticed that the Provident Fund dues of respondent/complainant had remained with the appellant bank from 21.03.2002 to 02.02.2009. The dues i.e. Rs.2,45,972/- had been cleared on 02.02.2009. In these circumstances, the respondent/complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% on Provident Fund dues i.e. Rs.2,45,972/- from 21.3.02 to 2.2.09. After 2.2.09, the appellant bank shall pay further interest at the same rate on the amount accumulated by way of interest on Rs.2,45,972/- on 2.2.09 till payment.
The Ld. District Forum has rightly awarded the amount towards compensation for mental and physical harassment to the complainant. The litigation expenses have also been rightly awarded.
The impugned order stands modified as regards interest only to the extent as has been stated above.
The appellant bank is directed to make the payment within one month of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall fetch the interest @ 18% per annum.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
(Justice Veena Birbal) President (Salma Noor) Member sa