State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indian School Society vs State Bank Of India on 3 August, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 424 / 2007
Indian School Society
Jogiwala, Dehradun through its Authorised Signatory
Ms. Purnima Singh D/o late Sh. Krishan Singh
R/o Badripur, Dehradun
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India through its
Branch Manager, I.I.P. Branch
Jogiwala, Dehradun
......Respondent / Opposite Party
Sh. Vijay Chandna, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. S. Parashar, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 03/08/2010
ORDER
(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is complainant's appeal against the order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, dismissing consumer complaint No. 95 of 2003, on the premise that the complainant was not entitled to have sum of Rs. 1,27,532/- credited in its current account with the respondent - bank and also to any amount of damages on account of any negligence on the part of the bank, which allowed withdrawal of the said sum of Rs. 1,27,532/- on a notice served on 20.11.2002 by the Regional / Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun under Section 8-F of The Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 on account of default of provident fund contribution by the complainant - society, which run various schools in discharge of its objects and functions, namely, 2 dissemination of modern scientific education. In dismissing the consumer complaint, the District Forum rejected the contention of the complainant that the said amount could not have been permitted to be withdrawn by the Regional / Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun from the account of the complainant, as the amount was alleged to be due on Vivekanand School, with which the complainant has no concern whatsoever. According to the District Forum, the respondent - bank was legally obliged to part with the said amount when the withdrawal was initiated under the provisions of Section 8-F of The Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 and notice was served on the respondent - bank on 20.11.2002 by the Regional / Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun. Aggrieved by the finding and the order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered their submissions in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the matter and at the outset, we may state that there being no merit in this appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed.
3. The reasons for the aforesaid decision are that the notice under the aforesaid provision by the Regional / Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun was served on 20.11.2002 on the respondent - bank with an endorsement that copy of the notice was also served on the accountant of the complainant - society and in the face of the endorsement available on the said notice dated 20.11.2002 (Paper No. 36), we would not subscribe to the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that no such notice was received by the complainant or any of its functionary and, therefore, the respondent - bank was not legally obliged to part with the above amount of 3 Rs. 1,27,532/- from the current account of the complainant. The respondent - bank having been served with the notice, could not have legally resisted withdrawal of the said amount and particularly when it was mentioned in the notice that copy of the notice was also received by the accountant of the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant also argued that the notice dated 20.11.2002 (Paper No. 36) was a got-up notice in view of the fact that the actual notice dated 20.11.2002 (Paper No. 18) would indicate that the provident fund dues pertained to a school named as Vivekanand School, Jogiwala, Dehradun, as such mentioned in the actual notice and the respondent - bank was not legally obliged to part with the said amount from the account of the complainant and in doing so, it acted negligently and made deficiency in service. The averment made in paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit of Sh. Vipin Chadha, who was the Branch Manager of the respondent - bank at the relevant time, prove that initially the notice dated 20.11.2002 (Paper No. 18) relating to Vivekanand School was served by the Regional / Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun and finding that there was no such account with the respondent - bank, the EPF officials were informed accordingly. Thereafter, the EPF officials went to the office of the complainant and came back after sometime and served another notice relating to the account number of the complainant and also informed the said Branch Manager that they had served a copy of the notice on the complainant and which had been received by their accountant. That way, second notice was served on the respondent - bank on 20.11.2002 itself, as referred above and finding that it related to the account of the complainant, the Branch Manager of the respondent - bank was legally obliged to part with the above-mentioned amount under the relevant provision of The Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952.
4Therefore, we would not subscribe to the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that the second notice dated 20.11.2002 (Paper No. 36) was a got-up notice and the respondent - bank, thus, made deficiency in service in allowing withdrawal of the said amount from the account of the complainant. The District Forum has, in our view, also rightly taken into account the second notice in proper prospective to reject the contention of the complainant and accept the version of the respondent - bank that it was legally obliged to part with the above amount on having been served with the notice relating to the current account of the complainant. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent - bank also rightly drew our attention to the provision of Section 8-F of The Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952, under which the respondent - bank was legally obliged to permit withdrawal of the above-mentioned amount from the account of the complainant, for being remitted to the Regional / Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun. That way, the respondent - bank has not made any deficiency in service towards its customer, the complainant.
5. In view of above, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which we hereby do. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K