State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Employeesprovident Fund Organization vs Madan Lal & Anr. on 31 March, 2014
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
(1) First Appeal No: 298/2013.
Date of Presentation: 28.10.2013.
Date of Decision: 31.03.2014.
.................................................................................
Employees' Provident Fund Organization,
Block No.34, SDA Complex, Kasumpti,
Shimla-171009, H.P.
Through its Provident Fund Commissioner.
... Appellant.
Versus
1. Madan Lal S/o Shri R.D. Sharma,
C/o HPTDC, Ritz Annexe,
The Mall, Shimla, H.P.
2. M/s H.P. Tourism Development Corporation,
Ritz Annexe, Ridge, Shimla, H.P.
Through its Authorized Signatory.
... Respondents.
..........................................................................................
For Appellant: Mr. Swaran Sharma, Advocate vice
Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2: Ex-parte.
..........................................................................................
AND
(2) First Appeal No: 330/2013.
Date of Presentation: 14.11.2013.
Date of Decision: 31.03.2014.
.................................................................................
Madan Lal S/o Shri R.D. Sharma,
C/o HPTDC, Ritz Annexe,
The Mall, Shimla, H.P.
... Appellant.
Versus
1. Employees' Provident Fund Organization,
Block No.34, SDA Complex, Kasumpti,
Shimla-171009, H.P.
Through its Regional Director.
2. H.P. Tourism Development Corporation,
Ritz Annexe, Ridge, Shimla, H.P.
Through its Authorized Representative.
... Respondents.
..........................................................................................
Employees' Provident Fund Organization vs. Madan Lal & Anr. (F.A. No.298/2013)
&
Madan Lal Vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organization & Anr. (F.A. No.330/2013)
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Swaran Sharma, Advocate vice
Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
For Respondents No.2: Ex-parte.
.........................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) By this common order, we proceed to dispose of two appeals, one filed by the complainant and the other by one of the opposite parties. Appeal, i.e. F.A. No. 330 of 2013, has been filed by the complainant, seeking a direction for payment of damages and second appeal, i.e. F.A. No.298 of 2013, has been filed by one of the opposite parties seeking setting aside of the impugned order and dismissal of the complaint. Madan Lal, who has filed appeal, i.e. F.A. No.330 of 2013, shall hereinafter be referred as complainant, while Employees' Provident Fund Organization, which has filed F.A. No. 298 of 2013, shall be referred to as opposite party No.1.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of the two appeals are as follows. Complainant-Madan Lal, is an employee of Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation and he had been contributing towards provident fund in accordance 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? 2 Employees' Provident Fund Organization vs. Madan Lal & Anr. (F.A. No.298/2013) & Madan Lal Vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organization & Anr. (F.A. No.330/2013) with para 68B of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. In the month of September, 2009, he applied for an advance of `4.00 lacs, out of his provident fund accumulation, for the construction of a house. Advance was sanctioned. Fifty percent of the amount by way of first instalment was released in November, 2009. He applied for release of second instalment on 19.01.2010. Opposite party No.1, asked for certain information, including fund utilization proof. Complainant sent bills worth `1.59 lacs, in support of his plea that funds had been utilized. It appears that opposite party No.1 asked for proof of utilization of the entire amount of money so released by way of first instalment. On 01.06.2010, complainant submitted additional bills of `66,000/-.
3. In addition, the complainant was required to supply certain other documents, like title deed of the land and also 'No Objection Certificate' from Pradhan of the Panchayat. When the second instalment of `2.00 lacs, was not released even after the submission of additional bills of `66,000/-, complaint was filed on 16.06.2010. On 26.07.2010, during the pendency of the complaint, second instalment of advance was released.
3
Employees' Provident Fund Organization vs. Madan Lal & Anr. (F.A. No.298/2013) & Madan Lal Vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organization & Anr. (F.A. No.330/2013)
4. Opposite party No.1 contested the complaint and pleaded that second instalment had been delayed for want of proof of utilization of the entire amount released by way of first instalment. Learned District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed opposite party No.1 to release second instalment of advance and also to pay `2,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. It is submitted on behalf of opposite party No.1 that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in First Appeal No.647 of 2013, titled Gopala Chand Gautam & Ors. Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization & Anr., the Forum did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the dispute raised in the complaint. Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the aforesaid appeal has held that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director Health Services, Haryana & Ors, AIR 2013 SC 3060, that dispute regarding service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any retiral benefit of a government servant, would not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer 4 Employees' Provident Fund Organization vs. Madan Lal & Anr. (F.A. No.298/2013) & Madan Lal Vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organization & Anr. (F.A. No.330/2013) Protection Act, 1986, the State Commission did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints of Gopala Chand & Ors.
7. In the present case, the dispute is not with regard to any retiral benefit. The dispute is between the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, with whom the contribution is made by the subscribers, who are employed by some other agencies and a subscriber to the scheme. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 331 as also in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Bhavani, AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2957, that the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner in the matter of contributions made by the employees under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, is a 'service provider', while the employee making contribution is a 'consumer' and, therefore, if any deficiency is alleged on behalf of the Provident Fund Commissioner, in relation to the contribution fund of the employees, the Consumer Fora have the jurisdiction. So, the submission made on behalf of opposite party No.1, that District Forum did not have the jurisdiction, is rejected.
5
Employees' Provident Fund Organization vs. Madan Lal & Anr. (F.A. No.298/2013) & Madan Lal Vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organization & Anr. (F.A. No.330/2013)
8. As regards merits of the case, learned District Forum has failed to take notice of the fact, which is borne out from the record of the complaint, that second instalment of advance stood released in favour of the complainant in less than one & half month of filing of the complaint and, therefore, as a matter of fact, the complaint ought to have been disposed of as soon as this fact was brought to the notice of the District Forum. In any case, when the amount of second instalment stood released, the question of directing the opposite party No.1 to release the amount of `2.00 lacs, did not arise.
9. As regards the order for payment of costs, it is made out from the record that in addition to asking for funds utilization proof, the opposite party No.1 asked for copy of title deed and 'No Objection Certificate' from Pradhan of the Panchayat. Copy of title deed could have been asked only before the advance was sanctioned, or the first instalment was released, but not thereafter and, in fact, when the complainant replied to the initial letter of opposite party No.1, vide letter dated 02.03.2010, this demand was dropped and not raised in the subsequent letter. Therefore, we do feel that because of the action of the opposite party No.1, in delaying the release of second 6 Employees' Provident Fund Organization vs. Madan Lal & Anr. (F.A. No.298/2013) & Madan Lal Vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organization & Anr. (F.A. No.330/2013) instalment, even after the submission of additional vouchers of `66,000/-, complainant was compelled to approach the District Forum and, so, the opposite party No.1 must bear the cost of litigation.
10. In view of the above discussion, appeal is partly allowed and the direction regarding release of second instalment of advance is set aside, as the said instalment stood released during the pendency of the complaint.
11. As regards the appeal filed by the complainant, as already noticed, the second instalment was released within one & half month of the submission of proof of utilization of the first instalment of `2.00 lacs, and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any damages, especially when he has not adduced evidence showing that he had, in fact, sustained any financial loss because of the delay.
12. This order be placed on the record of F.A. No. 298/2013 and its authenticated copy on the record of F.A. No.330/2013.
13. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
7 Employees' Provident Fund Organization vs. Madan Lal & Anr. (F.A. No.298/2013) & Madan Lal Vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organization & Anr. (F.A. No.330/2013) (Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member March 31, 2014.
N Mehta) 8