State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines ... vs 1. P.Ramakrishna, on 16 March, 2023
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSALA COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.181 OF 2016
AGAINST ORDES IN CC.NO.95/2013,
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, KARIMNAGAR
Between:
The Regional Commissioner,
Coal Mines Provident Fund,
Millennium Quarters,
I.B. Colony, Opp: Bus Stand,
Godavarikhani , Karimnagar - 505209.
.....Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
And
1.P. Ramakrishna, W/o. Late P. Perumallu, Aged about: 69 years, Occ: Employee, No.2202925, Retired General Mazdoor of SMG-1, Incline of SCCO Ltd., R/o. H.No. 27-2-149/1, Peddanapalli (V), Bellampalli (M), Adilabad (Dist). (Died on 26.01.2022).
......Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. The Colliery Manager, The SCCO Ltd., Somagudem, No.1, Incline, Mandamarri Area, PO & Mdl. Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist.
......Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2
3. Puttur Venu Gopal, S/o. Late P. Ramakrishna, Aged about: 33 years, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No.27-2-149/1, Peddanapalli (V), Bellampalli (M), Mancherial District the then Adilabad District.
4. Puttur Madhuvennela, D/o. Late P. Ramakrishna, Aged about: 35 years, R/o. H.No. 27-2-149/1, Peddanapalli (V), Bellampalli (M), Mancherial District the then Adilabad District.
(R3 & R4 are brought on record as LRs of R1 vide orders dt.25.05.2022 in FAIA NO. 780/2022).
.....Respondent No. 3 & 4Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Party No.1 : M/s. Kunamalla Karunakar Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant No.1 : Died Counsel for the Respondent No.2/ Opposite Parties No 2 : Mr. J. Prabhakar Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 & 4/ Complainants 2 & 3 : Mr. Mohd. Afzal 2 QUORAM : HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, INCHARGE PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI. K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER - JUDICAL WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ********** Order : (PER HON'BLE SRI. K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER - JUDICIAL)
1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 U/s. 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dt. 06.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar, Telangana State, in CC. No.95/2013.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The first respondent in this appeal was the original complainant who filed the consumer complaint vide CC. No. 95/2013 against opposite parties No.1 & 2. The appellant herein was the first opposite party and the second respondent in this appeal was the second opposite party before the District Forum.
3. For the purpose of clarification, it is to be mentioned here that while this appeal No. 181 of 2016 is pending, the first Respondent/Complainant died on 26.01.2022, therefore his legal representatives (LRs) who are his son and daughter were brought on record as Respondents No.3 & 4 vide the orders dt.25.05.2022 passed in FAIA No.780/2022 by this State Commission.
4. The brief averements of the complaint are that the complainant was appointed as General Mazdoor into the services of SCCO Ltd., on 31.03.1962. Initially he worked at Shanthikhani for three years and was transferred to RKP-II and worked for four years there and subsequently he was transferred to Somagudem-I incline in the year, 1969 and he had rendered his services at the same place up to his retirement on 31.03.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation of (58) years. On his retirement he was not paid the CMPF contributions and delayed badly stating as no details of CMPF recoveries were found and on correspondence, 3 opposite party No.2 disclosed that two PF numbers were allotted to him which are 12513 & 67870 vide his letter bearing No. MMR/SMG.1/WO/12/03/1462 dt.08.09.2003. The opposite party No.2 very clearly stated in his another letter No. MMR/SMG.1/WO/12/03/12/06/1653 dt. 10.11.2006 that the CM PF recovered amounts were credited to the A/c. No.12513 right from the date of his appointment which was 1962 and recoveries effected upto 1979 and from 1980 till retirement on A/c No.67870. After the retirement he received the amount of Rs.4,28,514/- which is the amount from 1980 but he had not received the amount accumulated from the date of his appointment i.e., from 1962 to 1979. He had approached the office of SCCO Ltd., and also CM PF office several times but was unable to get proper information even though years passed. As such he applied for details under RTI Act, 2005 and the opposite party No.1 issued a letter No. CPF/GDK/47/Admn/RTIA/2540 dt. 09.09.2010 along with statement stating that the CM PF A/c No. 12513 was not allotted to anybody and further disclosed that however those amounts were added. The opposite party No.1 issued another letter No. CPF/GDK/47/Admn/RTIA/369 dt. 09.05.2013 stating that the PF A/c. Nos. 12512 and 12513 were not allotted to anybody as per their records. The opposite party No.2 disclosed that he added the amounts to the A/c No. 12513 right from the date of appointment in 1962 to 1979 and from 1980 till retirement to the A/c. No. 67870. The complainant further submits that the opposite parties played with his recovered provident fund amounts and not settled the eligible amounts as a result he received less amounts than his batch mates and suffering till date. Hence the complaint.
5. The opposite party No.1 filed his counter/written version contending that the contents of the complaint are false except the fact that he was an employee and therefore opposite party No.1 settled his amounts. Opposite party No.1 further submits that as per the office records, Sri P. Ramakrishna (Complainant) CMPF A/c. No. H/67870 worked in the SCCO Ltd., and he was retired on 31.03.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation and further that only the CM PF A/c. No. H/67870 was allotted to Sri P. Ramakrishna who is the complainant. The CMPF A/c. No. 4 H/12513 was not allotted to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. In this case the contributions advised on CMPC A/c. No. H/12513 were credited to the CMPF A/c. No. H/67870 of Sri P. Ramakrishna, the complainant, at the final settlement promptly without any fail. The complainant was appointed in SCCO Ltd., in the year 1962 and he was appointment CMPF A/c. No. H/67870 in the same year. Since the time of allotment he was on the same account number till his superannuation. So the question of allotting two numbers i.e., H/67870 and H/12513 does not arise under any circumstances. Opposite Party No.1 further submits that the complainant initially opted not to join the Family Pension scheme. Later on, he opted for the pension scheme, 1998. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.51,730/- was deducted from his Provident Fund account and transferred the same to Family Pension account, and Refund accumulations were already settled in favour of the complainant on 28.11.2003 itself and was paid to the complainant as such no amount is due from the opposite party No.1. The complaint is barred by limitation for the reason that he claimed all the benefits in the year 2003 and opposite party No.1 settled the same and paid the amount of the benefits to him in the year 2003 itself and the complainant since then kept silent but filed the vexatious complaint in the year 2013 but as per Sec. 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complaint is to be filed within a period of two years from the date of cause of action as such, solely on this ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite party No.1 has not committed any deficiency of service in settling the claim of the complainant and therefore, prays to dismiss the complainant with exemplary costs.
6. Opposite party No.2 despite service of notice , did not appear before the District Forum and therefore opposite party No.2 was set exparte.
7. During the course of enquiry the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. Opposite party No.1 filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 & B2.
8. The District Forum after considering the material available on record allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties 5 jointly and severally to recalculate the CMPF accumulations for the period from 31.01.1962 to 1979 on the A/c. No. H/12513 being the "initial account" allotted to the complainant and ascertain the total refund amount for the period from 1962 to 2003 (appointment to superannuation) and if any amount/dues still payable must be released immediately with interest @ 9% per annum on it and further directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- each as punitive damages for non-compliance of the interim order of the District Forum and to pay Rs.3,000/- towards costs of litigation. Time for compliance is 30 days.
9. Aggrieved by the above order of the District Forum the first opposite party preferred the present appeal contending as follows:
(i) that the District Forum grossly erred in allowing the complaint without appreciating the facts and the documents filed by the Appellant/Opposite party No.1 and further the Forum below ought not have given credence to Ex.A1 & A2 which were after the settlement of claim of the complainant.
10. The learned counsel for the Appellant in his oral arguments submitted that this State Commission summoned the material papers belonging to the Provident Fund account of the complainant and he prays the Commission to look into the same which will establish the fact that the office staff due to confusion mistakenly in Ex.A1 & A2 letters mentioned the CMPF account number of the complainant as 12513 but in fact his CMPF account number had been H/67870 right from his appointment till his retirement to which the CMFP accumulations of the complainant were credited Ex.B2 ledger account of complainant shows the said fact. But the District Forum has not considered the same and not appreciated Ex.B2 on the correct lines. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant first opposite party have settled all the claims of the deceased complainant at the time of his retirement in the year 2003 itself and nothing is due from the opposite party No.1 except mere allegation on the basis of Ex.A2 letter addressed by the second opposite party to first opposite party. By submitting so, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order of the District Forum.
611. Heard arguments of both sides.
12. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with in any manner? To what relief?
13. We have scanned the whole material borne by the record and the same is manifest that it is not in dispute that the deceased complainant P. Ramakrishna was appointed as General Mazdoor in the services of opposite party No.2 on 31.03.1962 and he worked at Shanthikhani for three years initially and then transferred to RKP-II and worked there for four years and again he was transferred to Somagudem-I inclined in the year 1969 and he worked there until he was retired on 31.03.2003.
14. It is also not in dispute that initially the deceased complainant did not opt for the Family Pension Scheme but later he opted for the Pension Scheme 1998 and accordingly a sum of Rs.51,730/- was deducted from his Provident Fund account and transferred the same to Family Pension Account.
15. It is the contention of the deceased complainant that on his retirement he received the amount of Rs.4,28,514/- which is the CMPF recovered amounts from the year 1980 but he had not received the amount accumulated from date of his appointment i.e., 1962 to 1979. It is his further contention that he went around the office of the opposite parties for clarification but the same proved like flogging the dead horse. So ultimately he knocked the doors of the District Forum for the recovery of his accumulated CMPF amounts from the year 1962 to 1979.
16. It is the further contention of the deceased complainant that his CMPF recovered amounts were credited to the A/c. No. 12513 from 1962 to 1979 and from 1980 onwards they were credited to the A/c. No.67870. Opposite party No.1 is due to him the amounts from 1962 to 1979.
17. On the other hand it is the vehement submission and contention of opposite party No.1 that the CMPF recovered 7 amounts of the deceased complainant were credited to the A/c. No.67870 from inception upto his retirement. The learned counsel for the appellant first opposite party made it clear that the staff of opposite party No.2 created the confusion by mentioning the A/c. No.12513 as the initial account number of the deceased complainant to which the CMPF recovered amounts were alleged to have been credited. But the same is not the truth.
18. To decide the above bone of contention, we have examined Ex.A1 to A4 meticulously and scrupulously. Ex.A1 & A2 are the copies of letters from opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 dt.08.09.2003 and 10.11.2006 respectively. It is to be mentioned here that the said two letters were after the settlement of the claims of deceased complainant by opposite party No.1 particularly in the light of the consumer complaint filed by the deceased complainant before the District Forum.
19. Ex.A3 & A4 are the original letters addressed by opposite party No.1 to the deceased complainant while he was alive. A chary perusal of Ex.A3 shows that Appellant/Opposite party No.1 categorically mentioned in the said letter that the CMPF A/c. No. of Sri P. Ramakrishna (Complainant) is H/67870 and his CMPF contributions were posted regularly on the same account number since his appointment to retirement. It is also mentioned in the said Ex.A3 letter that "a statement showing the CMPF contributions of the complainant with the interest year wise from his appointment to retirement is enclosed with the Ex.A3 letter for the information of complainant and still if the complainant got any doubt in calculation part he may kindly visit the office of opposite party No.1 and verify his ledger account by paying prescribed fee under provisions of RTI Act, 2005. The annexure statement enclosed to Ex.A3 letter shows that the same is ledger card vide A/c. No. H/67870 of the complainant P. Ramakrishna and the same shows the CMPF contributions of the complainant were credited to the above account right from the year 1963 upto 2003. Ex.A4 letter shows that the same was addressed by opposite party No.1 to the complainant Sri P. Ramakrishna and in the said letter it is clarified and was informed to the complainant that the CMPF 8 A/c. Nos. H/12512 and H/12513 have not been allotted for anybody as per records of opposite party No.1. Thus from the above facts it is clear that the CMPF contributions of the complainant from the date of his appointment upto his retirement were credited only to the CMPF A/c. NO. H/67870.
20. At this juncture it is germane to mention that at the instance of the complainant, this Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission summoned the whole record pertaining to the CMPF contributions of the complainant from the office of opposite party No.1 & 2 as the complainant filed FAIA No. 01/2019 in FA No. 181/2016 which I.A. was closed since the documents asked for were submitted to this State Commission. We have carefully examined the said file and the same corroborate the version of opposite party that the CMPF account number of the complainant is H/67870 to which the contributions of the complainant had been credited from the date of his appointment upto his retirement.
21. It is to be further made clear that in Ex.A2 letter addressed by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 the account number of Sri P. Ramakrishna (complainant) was mentioned as 12513 and 67870. In the said letter the particulars of the CMPF contributions of the complainant in the above two accounts were requested to be furnished by opposite party No.2. Similarly in Ex. A2 letter opposite party No.2 mentioned the CMPF account number of the complainant as 12513. On examination of the whole record of the complainant of his CMPF contributions, received from opposite parties, we observed that the staff of opposite party No.2 office by mistake mentioned the CMPF account number of complainant as 12513 but in fact they said number was not allotted by opposite party No.1 to anybody and the CMPF account number allotted to the complainant is only H/67870.
22. It is also to be made clear that the District Forum did not summon the whole file pertaining the CMPF contributions of the complainant from opposite parties but summoned the CMPF account numbers particulars (A/c. No.12513) basing on Ex.A1 & A2 letters. Had the District Forum summoned the whole file as this 9 Commission did, it would have known that the CMPF A/c. H/67870 is the only account number of complainant right from the inception of his appointment until his retirement.
23. It is also categorically mentioned in the file of complainant that all his CMPF contributions were credited only to the A/c. No. H/67870 and on his retirement all his claim amounts in the said account number were settled by opposite party No.1 in the year 2003 itself. In the said file of the complainant in the letter dt. 27.11.2018 addressed by opposite party No.1 to the complainant, it is mentioned directed by of the District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar in I.A. No. 50/2014 in CC. No. 95/2013 vide order No.405, dt. 09.05.2016. Opposite party No.1 recalculated the Provident Fund amount of the complainant and found that an excess amounts of Rs. 1904/- was paid to the complainant at the time of refund settlement and therefore complainant was requested to deposit the said excess amount within 7 days from the receipt of the said letter otherwise the said amount will be recovered from his monthly pension of the next month. A thorough examination of the Provident Fund amount file of the complainant clinchingly establishes that opposite party No.1 maintained the CMPF account of the complainant properly and settled the claim of the complainant as per eligibility and there are no due amounts to be paid to the complainant by opposite party No.1.
24. It is the contention of the Appellant/Opposite party No.1 that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. A keen scrutiny of the facts of the case emanated from the oral and documentary evidence borne by the record would show that admittedly opposite party No.1 paid the claim CMPF amounts of the complainant to him on his retirement in the year 2003 itself. But the complainant on the misapprehension that he was paid his CMPF contributions amount from 1980 upto 2003, the year his retirement but he was not paid his CMPF contributions from the year 1962 upto 1979. The District Forum under the impression that non-payment the CMPF contributions of the complainant, gives continuous cause of action and disposed of the consumer complaint in the said perspective. But as we have held supra that 10 opposite party No.1 settled all the claims of CMPF contributions of complainant in the year 2003 itself and opposite party No.1 is not due of any amount to be paid to the complainant, on a careful examination of the whole material borne by the record. In this context it is relevant to mention here that in the case on hand, the cause of action is not a continuous one but is as per the period of limitation provided under Consumer Protection Act, which is two years from the date of arising of the cause of action. As seen from the material available on record when the claim of the complainant was settled in the year 2003, the complainant ought to have filed the complaint within two years from the year 2003 but he filed the complaint in the year 2013, without any delay condonation petition as such we are of the considered opinion that the complaint is barred by the limitation as contended by the opposite party and on this ground alone, the complaint ought to have been dismissed.
25. Thus in view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal deserves and liable to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the District Forum.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum, Karimnagar in CC. No.95/2013 is set aside. No order as to costs.
All the miscellaneous applications filed in this appeal are hereby ordered "closed".
SD/- SD/-
-----------------------------------------------------
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER-J
Dated: 15.03.2023