State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines ... vs Sushil Kumar Srivastava on 28 August, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/662/2016 ( Date of Filing : 26 Jul 2016 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/05/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/209/2015 of District Burdwan) 1. Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Region-III, B.B. College Road, Ushagram, P.S.- Asansol(S), Dist. Burdwan, West Bengal, Pin -713 303. 2. Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Office of Coal Mines P.F. Commissioner, Police Line, Hirapur, P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Pin -826 001. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sushil Kumar Srivastava S/o Sri S.S.L. Srivastava, B-4/1602, L&T South City, Arekere Mico Layout, Bannerghatta Road, Banglore, Pin - 560 076. 2. Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India cum Ex-Officio Chairman of Board of Trustees Coal Mines Provident Fund, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi, Pin - 110 001. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Debdas Rudhra., Advocate Dated : 28 Aug 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Aggrieved with the decision of the Ld. District Forum passed in the instant complaint case, this Appeal is filed by Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Assansol & Anr.
Case of the Complainant, as stated in the petition of complaint, in short, was that in accordance with the direction of Asst. Commissioner, CMPF, Singrauli, he deposited a sum of Rs. 71,893/- on 07-03-2006. Despite this, the authority concerned refused to entertain his prayer for counting his past service for the purpose of fixing up the pensionable amount. Hence, the complaint case.
Counter case of the OP No. 3 was that the Complainant was not a 'consumer' and as such, the instant case was not maintainable. Further, it was submitted that Complainant's pension claim was settled as per the provision of CMPS, 1998 for the services rendered under the CIL with effect from the year 1990. Stating that the case of Mr. D.K.Verma was decided by the Law Ministry as an individual case and that the CMPS, 1998 does not allow counting of non-coal services for pension calculation, this OP denied any arbitrariness on its part.
Decision with reasons Parties were heard at length and documents on record gone through, including the citations referred to in the matter.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellants though claimed that they do not provide any service to the Respondent No. 1, in our considered opinion, the Respondent No. 1 comes squarely within the definition of 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the CMPS, 1998, and contributing to the same, he was availing of the services rendered by the Appellants for implementation of the Scheme.
In fact, the same proposition has been explained in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi [2000 (1) SCC 98], wherein in relation to the operation of the Consumer Protection Act to the Employees' Provident Fund Schemes it was held as under:
"A perusal of the Scheme clearly and unambiguously indicates that it is a 'service' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) and the member a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It is, therefore, without any substance to urge that the services under the Scheme are rendered free of charge and, therefore, the Scheme is not a 'service' under the Act. Both the State as well as the National Commission have dealt with this aspect in detail and rightly come to the conclusion that the Act was applicable in the case of the Scheme on the ground that its member was a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) and the Scheme was a 'service' under Section 2(1)(o)."
Thus, we find that the objection raised from the side of the Appellants on this score is bereft of any merit.
On the aspect of merit too, after going through the impugned order, it transpires that the Ld. District Forum has passed a speaking order in the matter, where the pros and cons of the dispute has been discussed at sufficient length.
Though it is argued by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants that the case of Sri D.K.Verma was an one off case and the same cannot be universally applied, he could not give any satisfactory explanation in that case (1) why did he mark the copy of his letter dated 28-08-2001 to all Regional Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners for taking necessary action on similar pension cases (2) why did the Asst. Commissioner, CMPF, Singrauli accede to extend similar privilege to the Respondent No. 1 and asked him to deposit requisite money for this purpose and lastly, (3) why did the concerned office accept the requisite money from the Respondent No. 1.
Above all, no discrimination can be made in the matter of according due privilege to the employees. It is against the principle of natural justice.
The dispute being well settled by the Ld. District Forum, to which we are fully in agreement, we see no compelling reason to discuss the matter afresh. The views of the Ld. District Forum can be considered as our views as well.
We find no merit in this Appeal. Consequent thereof, the same fails.
Hence, O R D E R E D The Appeal stands dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- being payable by the Appellants to the Respondent No. 1. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER