National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... vs Avinash Ramchandra Gokhale on 21 January, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 22/04/2015 in Complaint No. 57/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONER, PLOT NOS. C-14, AND C-15, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA E MUMBAI-400051 MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. AVINASH RAMCHANDRA GOKHALE C/O. MR. HANUMANT N. SHASTRI, R/O. NILTEJ, PLOT NO. 28, SECTOR-16, NEW PANVEL, TAL PANVEL, DISTT. RAIGAD ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN, MEMBER For the Appellant : Ms. Suchiti Chandra, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Gwen K.B., Advocate Dated : 21 Jan 2016 ORDER
1. This First Appeal has been filed by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority through Metropolitan Commissioner, (in short 'MMRDA') against the order dated 22.04.2015 of the Maharashtra, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short 'the State Commission') in Complaint Case No.CC/03/57.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant was an employee of the MMRDA and he resigned from his service on 7.4.1997. He did not get his terminal benefits in respect of CPF and gratuity for a long time inspite of several requests to the office of the MMRDA. He later filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the MMRDA and claimed Rs.16,43,178/-. The opposite party/appellant in their reply before the State Commission stated that the respondent had taken a housing loan through the Society and total due amount in this regard was Rs.2,61,916/-, which was to be deducted from the payable amount of CPF to the complainant. The total amount payable for the CPF was Rs.2,82,601/- and therefore, a cheque of about Rs.20,685/- was sent to the complainant but he refused to accept it. The State Commission after considering all the averments and the evidence decided the case on 22.4.2015 and passed the following orders:-
"1. Consumer complaint is allowed in part.
2. Opponent viz. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) is hereby directed to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.1,03,651/- (Rupees One Lac Three Thousand Six Thousand Six Hundred Fifty One) [Rs.20,685/- towards Contributory Provident Fund + Rs.72,966/- towards Gratuity] together with interest thereon @09% p.a. with effect from 03rd November, 1997 viz.after expiry of a reasonable period of one month from the date of acceptance of resignation, within a period of sixty days from the date of this order and failing which, rate of interest shall be enhanced to 12% p.a. instead of 09% p.a.
3. Opponent/MMRDA shall also pay to the Complainant, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation towards mental and physical agony.
4. Opponent/MMRDA shall bear its own costs and shall pay costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant."
3. Aggrieved with the above order of the State Commission, the present appeal has been filed by MMRDA.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the respondent's CPF amount was Rs.2,82,601/- and his dues on account of housing loan was to the tune of Rs.2,61,916/- and therefore a cheque of Rs.20,685/- was sent to the respondent in the year 2001, but he did not accept it. Learned counsel argued that for gratuity amount he should approach the MMRDA and MMRDA is ready to settle his claim.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the complainant has been suffering for many years for his retirement dues due to delaying tactics of the appellant. It is the duty of the concerned organization to settle the retirement dues just after the retirement of the employee. In the present case, complainant is not a government employee. To support the case of the complainant that he is a consumer, learned counsel cited the following judgments:-
(i). The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, ONGC Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Consumer Education Research Society Suraksha Sankul & Ors., RP No.3389 of 2013, decided on 20.3.2014 (NC), wherein the revision petition filed by ONGC Ltd. against the order dated 17.06.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat has been dismissed on the ground that the complainant was found to be consumer.
(ii). Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Bhavani, AIR 2008, SC, 2957. It has been held that:-
"20. Dr. Padia's submissions regarding the non-applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to the case of the respondent must also be rejected on account of the fact that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who is the person responsible for the working of the 1995 Pension Scheme, must be held to be a 'service giver' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Nor is this a case of rendering of free service or rendering of service under a contract of personal service so as to bring the relationship between the appellant and respondent within the concept of 'master and servant'. In our view, the respondent comes squarely within the definition of 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant for implementation of the scheme. The same is the case in the other appeals as well.
21. 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 follows:
A Perusal of the Scheme clearly and unambiguously indicates that it is a 'service' within the meaning of Section 291)(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)."
7. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after carefully perusing the records, we find that undue delay has already occurred in finalizing and paying the CPF and gratuity to the complainant. The State Commission has observed that the opposite party/appellant has admitted that an amount of Rs.1,03,651/- remains to be paid to the complainant which includes Rs.20,685/- towards CPF and Rs.72,966/- towards gratuity. Based on this, the State Commission has ordered the payment of Rs.1,03,651/- to the complainant by MMRDA. The records show that the appellant has stated this position based on the position of repayment of housing loan and the CPF as existing in the year 2001 whereas, the respondent has resigned in 1997 and his matter should have been settled in the year 1997. As the penal interest has also been charged on repayment of housing loan (as is clear from the Annexure to the reply filed by the opposite party), the respondent has suffered more loss by way of interest on housing loan than gain from interest in the CPF from 1997 to 2001. If the matter was settled in the year 1997, the respondent might have got more adjusted payment for his CPF. In the present case, the State Commission has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- keeping in view the harassment and mental agony suffered by the respondent and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Based on the above discussion, we find that the order of the State Commission is based on the admitted position by the appellant and does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. Therefore, we find no merits in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed herewith. The appellant is directed to comply with the order of the State Commission.
9. No order as to costs.
......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... PREM NARAIN MEMBER