State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Food Corporation Of India vs Kamaljit Singh Son Of Shri Bhagwan Singh ... on 19 March, 2014
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.1517 of 2009
Date of institution : 26.10.2009
Date of Decision : 19.03.2014
1. Food Corporation of India through Area Manager, Sangrur.
2. The Manager, (CPF) Food Corporation of India, CPF Division, Zonal
Office (North) Khdya Purna Sadan, Sector 24, Noida (U.P.).
...Appellants/OPs
Versus
Kamaljit Singh son of Shri Bhagwan Singh AG II (D), FCI, Sangrur.
...Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against the order
dated 31.08.2009 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Shri H.S.Guram, Member
Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri-I, Advocate
For respondent : None
ORDER
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ Opposite parties (hereinafter referred as 'OPs') under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'Act') against the order dated 31.08.2009 in consumer complaint no.240 of 2009 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter called as 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the First Appeal No.1517 of 2009 2 complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') was accepted.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Kamaljit Singh filed the complaint under the Act against the OPs on the averment that he was the employee of Food Corporation of India (in short 'FCI') OP no.1/appellant no.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'OP no.1'). He was posted at Sangrur, he joined the services of FCI on 02.03.1972 and was also a member of Contributory Provident Fund (in short 'CPF') under account no.12579 which was allotted to him. The complainant requested number of times to the OPs to provide CPF slips to the complainant. OP no.2 wrote letter to the complainant that CPF slips had already been delivered in the District office and District office has already written letter to OP no.2 that the District Forum has not received CPF slips in favour of the complainant. The OP no.1 failed to deliver the CPF slips to the complainant which shows deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant filed the complaint seeking directions to the OPs to supply the CPF slips w.e.f. March/1973 till date to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and agony and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice the OPs filed their joint written reply by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; complainant is not a consumer as defined in Act under Section 2(i)(d). On merits it was not denied that the complainant is the employee of the OP no.1 and he was posted at Sangrur. It is not in dispute that he has joined the services on 2.3.1972 and that he was the member of a CPF. It was denied that he was allotted account no.12579. It was submitted that CPF slips of each and every employee were issued by Zonal Office North Noida OP no.2/appellant no.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'OP no.2'). It was submitted that OP no.1 requisitioned the CPF slips from OP no.2 in reply to the letter First Appeal No.1517 of 2009 3 of OP no.1 received a fax message dated 23.06.2009 from OP no.2 wherein it was stated that CPF no.12579 does not pertain to complainant and process to find actual CPF account number from Head Quarter, Delhi is going on which would take sometime. On receipt of complete CPF collection the same will be reconciled in the zonal office, Noida and on reconciliation the CPF slips year wise will be prepared as per rules and regulations of the FCI. It was further submitted that as per record CPF account no.12579 was allotted to Sh. Dharam Pal, Officer of the FCI as informed by the Zonal Office through its Fax message. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Parties were allowed by the District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations complainant filed Ex.C-1 to Ex.C- 3 are the letters, Ex.C-4 is the affidavit of complainant and documents Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-18. On the other hand, OP filed affidavit of Sh.Deepak Sharma, Area Manager as Ex.R-1 and documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and OP no.1 and having perused the record, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 31.08.2009 and directed the OPs to supply to the complainant CPF slips from March, 1973 till date and Rs.10,000/- as compensation. The OP no.2 was proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum vide order dated 25.05.2009.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants/OPs have come up in the appeal on the ground that learned District Forum has not appreciated the fact that the respondent/complainant does not fall within the definition of the consumer as defined under the Act. The complainant was a serving employee of the FCI is governed under FCI Staff Regulations Act, 1971 and there was a relationship between the parties as First Appeal No.1517 of 2009 4 employer and employee and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. The documents produced on record as well as the contentions raised by the appellants were totally ignored by the District Forum. The order of the District Forum is based on surmises and conjectures. District Forum illegally allowed the complaint of the complainant/respondent which is not at all sustainable and is liable to be set-aside. It was prayed that the appeal may be accepted and order passed by the District Forum be set-aside.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.
9. Neither the counsel for the respondent nor anybody on his behalf present at the time of arguments.
10. It is an admitted fact that the complainant joined the services of FCI on 2.3.1972 and he is the member of the CPF. As alleged in the complaint it was the duty of the OP to supply CPF slips regularly. OP has not delivered the CPF slips w.e.f. March, 1973 but at the time of arguments, the counsel for the OP has produced letter dated 18.11.2011 in which it was mentioned that the office had submitted all the CPF slips to the complainant vide this office letter no.A/1(951) Kamaljit Singh dated 11.07.2011 and also made final payment of CPF amounting to Rs.15,29,794/- vide this office letter dated A/1(951)/72 dated 14.09.2011. In such a situation the contract of non supplying of CPF slip year wise dispute the fact that the OP/appellant has been collecting monthly specification for CPF as is evident from Ex.C-5 under the CPF allotted no.12579, as such, we are of the view that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant for non delivering the CPF slips and payment of the same to the respondent for the same for such a long period. The complainant was consume. Opposite party service provider, First Appeal No.1517 of 2009 5 therefore, learned District Forum had the jurisdiction to try the complaint. We are of the opinion that District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant.
11. Sequel to the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Forum is just and proper and do not call for any interference. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.03.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
14. The appellants/OPs have deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs.5000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member (H.S.Guram) Member March 19, 2014 Rs