State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M.D Hindustan Salt Ltd. & Anr. vs Sh. Balak Ram Sharma. & Ors. on 12 June, 2017
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 249/2016
Date of Presentation: 25.07.2016
Order Reserved on : 18.04.2017
Date of Order : 12.06.2017
......
1. The Managing Director Hindustan Salt Ltd. Government
of India undertaking B-427 Pradhan Marg Malvia Nagar
PB No.146 Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Mines Manager with its headquarter at Mandi of
Hindustan Salt Ltd.
...... Appellant/Opposite Parties
Versus
1. Balak Ram Sharma son of Shri Dhani Ram resident of
Village & Post Office Bijni Tehsil Sadar District Mandi
H.P.
2. Amar Nath Kapoor son of Shri Relu Ram resident of
Chauntra Tehsil Jogindernagar District Mandia H.P.
3. Ramesh Chand Sharma son of Shri Balkrishan resident of
Tarna Hills Mandi Town H.P.
4. Dharam Dass son of Shri Jawahar resident of Village
Maseran Post Office Pali Tehsil Padhar District Mandi
H.P.
5. Nikka Ram son of Shri Fagnu Ram resident of village
Garsouh Post Office Barsu Tehsil Sadar District Mandi
H.P.
6. Dalip Singh son of Shri Jahru Ram resident of Village
Taryambal Post Office Dawahan Tehsil Kotli District
Mandi H.P.
7. Mani Kuntla Dutta widow of late Shri S.K. Dutta resident
of H.No.330/3 MG Marg Mandi H.P.
8. Lekh Ram son of Kanshi Ram resident of Village Hullu
Post Office Drang Tehsil Padhar District Mandi H.P.
......Respondent s/Complainants
M.D. Hindustan Salt Ltd & Anr. Versus Balak Ram Sharma & Ors.
(F.A. No.249/2016)
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Ms. Meena Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellants : Mr. Dheeraj Bansal Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. N.D. Sharma Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 30.04.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.366/2014 title Balak Ram Sharma & Ors. Versus The Managing Director Hindustan Salt Ltd. & Anr. Present complaint filed in consolidated manner by 8 complainants i.e. namely Balak Ram, Amar Nath, Ramesh Chand, Dharam Dass, Nikka Ram, Dalip Singh, Mani Kuntla and Lekh Ram.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Shri Balak Ram and other eight persons have filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainants were working in Hindustan Salt Ltd. at Mandi. It is pleaded that complainants were entitled to CPF contribution from 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2
M.D. Hindustan Salt Ltd & Anr. Versus Balak Ram Sharma & Ors.
(F.A. No.249/2016) Hindustan Salt Ltd. and 50% D.A. was to be merged in the basic pay with effect from 01.04.2004. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not pay CPF to complainants and withheld the CPF. It is pleaded that husband of co- complainant No.7 died without receiving any benefits of CPF.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that complainants are not consumer and it is pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. It is pleaded that as per notification dated 24.06.2005 benefit would be allowed to employees of those agencies who are in a position to absorb the additional expenses on account of merger of D.A. with basic pay from their own resources without any budgetary support of the Government. It is pleaded that Hindustan Salt Ltd. at present is financially weak and is not in a position to pay the arrears and benefits to its employees. It is further pleaded that opposite parties are not service provider and it is pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. It is pleaded that complainants are not entitled to any relief. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4. Complainants filed affidavit of Balak Ram in evidence. Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence despite several opportunities granted by learned District Forum. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party No.1 to release the CPF amount of all 3 M.D. Hindustan Salt Ltd & Anr. Versus Balak Ram Sharma & Ors.
(F.A. No.249/2016) the complainants. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party No.1 to release all the pensionary benefits to complainants in the light of notification of Government of India bearing No.2(6)/2004-DPE(WC)-GL-VI Annexure- (271.20) dated 24.04.2005. In addition learned District Forum further ordered opposite parties to pay compensation to complainants to the tune of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand). In addition learned District Forum further ordered opposite parties to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) to the complainants.
5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum appellants filed present appeal before State Commission.
6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
7. Following points arises for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
8. One of the complainant namely Shri Balak Ram Sharma filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit 4 M.D. Hindustan Salt Ltd & Anr. Versus Balak Ram Sharma & Ors.
(F.A. No.249/2016) that opposite parties are profit making institutions and are in a position to pay arrears and benefits of its retired employees. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties are avoiding payment of arrears and benefits to the complainants and have committed deficiency in service. There is recital in affidavit that complainants falls within definition of consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act 1986.
9. Opposite parties did not file any evidence by way of affidavits as per mode mentioned in section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 despite several opportunities granted by learned District Forum. Evidence of opposite parties was closed by learned District Forum vide order dated 19.04.2016. As per section 2(b)(iv) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 complainant means one or more consumer where there are numerous consumers having same interest. In the present case there are eight complainants. It is proved on record that all the eight complainants have same interest. It is held that all eight complainants falls within the definition of consumer as defined in section 2(b)(iv) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
10. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that complaint relating to CPF cannot be filed before Consumer Fora is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that consumer complaint relating to CPF can be filed before 5 M.D. Hindustan Salt Ltd & Anr. Versus Balak Ram Sharma & Ors.
(F.A. No.249/2016) consumer Fora. See 2008(1) CPC 287 NC title National Foundation for Communal Harmony Versus Balwant Singh & Anr. Also see 2000(1) CPC 250 Supreme Court of India title Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Versus Shiv Kumar Joshi. Also see 1996(1) CPC 440 NC titled Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad Versus Shiv Kumar Joshi.
11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that as per section 13(6) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 provision of Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 would apply in the present consumer complaint and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has perused provision of Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 carefully. State Commission is of the opinion that provision of Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 would apply when one person sue or sued on behalf of other person without impleading them as co-party relating to same interest. In the present case complainants have filed present complaint relating to their own personal interest and have not filed complaint relating to other persons who are not co-party in complaint.
12. No evidence is adduced by the opposite parties despite several opportunities granted by the learned District Forum. Hence adverse inference is drawn against the opposite 6 M.D. Hindustan Salt Ltd & Anr. Versus Balak Ram Sharma & Ors.
(F.A. No.249/2016) parties. Affidavit filed by the complainant namely Shri Balak Ram remained unrebutted on record. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by complainant Shri Balak Ram. Affidavit filed by co-complainant Shri Balak Ram is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of State Commission. It is proved on record that complainants are retired persons. It is held that opposite parties are not legally competent to stop payment of contributed provident fund of retired complainants. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
13. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order passed by learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left with to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Meena Verma Member 12.06.2017.
KD* 7