State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Regional Provident Fund ... vs A.K. Madesachari,2/300-C, Kumber ... on 26 May, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., JUDICIAL MEMBERF.A.440/2009
[Against order in C.C.No.22/2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Krishnagiri] DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MAY 2011
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, | Anna Salai, | Appellant / 1st Opposite Party Salem 636 004. | Vs.
1. A.K. Madesachari, | 1st Respondent / Complainant S/o. V.N. Krishnachari, HoH | 2/300-C, Kumber Street, V.S.R. Building, | Main Road, Berigai Post, Hosur Taluk, | Krishnagiri District. |
2. The Branch Manager, | Respondents/2nd, 3rd and 4th OPs Dharmapuri District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., | Berigai Post, Hosur Taluk, | Krishnagiri Taluk. | |
3. The Management, | Salem District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., | Cherry Road, Salem 636 007. | |
4. The General Manager, | Dharmapuri District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., | Dharmapuri.
The first respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay the Provident Fund amount with interest and to pay Rs.1 lakh towards compensation for mental agony. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.16.11.2007 in C.C.22/2006.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 06.05.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellant / 1st OP : Mr.K. Ramu, Advocate.
Counsel for the R1 /Complainant : Mr.Sayeedin Mohamed Arif, Advocate.
Counsel for the R2 & 4 /2nd & 4th Ops. :
Mr.Palaniswamy, Advocate.
Counsel for the R3 / 3rd OP. : Mr.M.R. Raghavan, Advocate.
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The first opposite party is the appellant.
2. The first respondent/complainant, who was in service of one M/s.Harita Seatings Systems Ltd., leaving the job, applied for refund of the Provident Fund contribution in Form No.19 to the first opposite party.
On the basis of the application, the first opposite party informed the complainant, that the cheque for Rs.32,525/- was sent to the second opposite party bank. On request, the second opposite party informed that the cheque was sent for collection, despite waiting, renewing the request, there was no proper response, whereas, he was insulted causing mental agony. Thus, the complaint seeking, relief against the opposite parties individually or jointly, directing them to pay the provident fund amount as well a compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental agony, has filed the case.
3. The first opposite party admitting the employment of the complainant as well as entitlement of Rs.32,525/-, being the contribution amount under provident fund scheme, resisted the complaint, contending that the cheque was forwarded to the second opposite party, to credit the amount in the account of the complainant, who appears to have sent the cheque for collection to Salem District Co-op. Bank, namely third opposite party, that when the matter was reported to the first opposite party about the misplacement or loss of cheque after obtaining Indemnity Bond, they have issued a fresh cheque, which was realized on 29.11.2006, and as such, this opposite party having not committed any deficiency in service, not liable to answer the claim of the complainant, seeking dismissal of the complaint.
4. The other opposite parties denying the alleged deficiency, reiterating the procedure adopted by them, contended that they have not committed any deficiency in service, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. The District Forum by its order dated 16.11.2007, finding fault with the first opposite party alone, that they have sent the cheque to the second opposite party, instead of issuing the cheque directly in favour of the complainant, it should be construed as deviation of procedure, amounting to deficiency of service. In this view, the first opposite party alone was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation, with cost, rejecting the rest of the claim, dismissing the case against other opposite parties, thereby, causing grievance to the first opposite party, resulting this appeal.
6. The complainant is an ex-employee of M/s.Harita Seatings Sytems Ltd., While he was in service, he joined as a Member of Provident Fund and his Account Number is TN.25284/65. After retirement or leaving the job as the case may be as seen from the pleadings, he applied in Form No.19 on 24.07.2006, claiming his provident fund accumulation, not in dispute. Pursuant to the claim, as per the procedure adopted followed and as security measure, a cheque dated 19.07.2006 was sent to the second opposite party, where the complainant had savings bank account. The second opposite party forwarded the cheque to the Salem District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., that is third opposite party and thereafter there was no reply.
7. As seen from the communications, when the matter was reported by the complainant to the first opposite party, the first opposite party informed Dharmapuri District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., namely the second opposite party, to settle the account by paying the amount, as seen from Ex.A4.
The second opposite party, who appears to have sent the cheque for collection, has not received any reply from the third opposite party, resulting a communication dated 22.08.2005, as seen from Ex.B5 and Ex.B8. Therefore, the complainant once again requested the first opposite party and thereafter alone, they woke up and the third opposite party addressed a letter to the second opposite party informing that the cheque was not available, requesting to obtain a fresh cheque. Once again the second opposite party addressed a letter to the third opposite party, that mere correspondence will not serve the purpose, requesting him to trace out the cheque, thereby showing the deficiency was with the second and third opposite parties alone. Thereafter issuing stop payment, they have to the State Bank of India, addressed the Employees Provident Fund Organization for fresh cheque and the first opposite party, on the basis of Ex.B22 after obtaining Indemnity Bond, issued a fresh cheque, thereby discharging its duty properly, which can be seen from Ex.B29 and Ex.B33.
Thus, the complainant received the amount on 29.11.2006. For the delay occurred, the first opposite party cannot be held responsible, and if at all, second and third opposite parties should be held responsible. Unfortunately, they were relieved, which is not challenged before this Commission.
8. The District Forum without understanding the procedure, unnecessarily accused the first opposite party, as if, they have sent the cheque to the second opposite party, instead of sending it to the complainant, which cannot be the procedure since the Provident Fund and other retiral benefits are credited in the account of the retired person, informing the same to the ex-employee, which was done properly in this case. Therefore, the finding of the District Forum, that without sending the cheque in favour of the complainant directly, deviated the procedure by the first opposite party, amounts to deficiency is against the procedure and unacceptable for us. For these reasons, we find no deficiency, on the part of the first opposite party and the order against the first opposite party is liable to be set aside.
9. As stated by us supra, the second and third opposite parties alone should have committed deficiency, in not sending the cheque for proper collection, misplacing the cheque or not taking immediate steps, to realize the amount and when they have brought to the notice of the first opposite party, they acted promptly, and unfortunately, they are faulted, that fault should be removed. If the complainant had filed an appeal, against the dismissal of the case, as far as second and third opposite parties, we would have awarded compensation for the deficiency, which is not possible since there is no appeal. Hence, this appeal is meritorious, and liable to be accepted.
10. Appeal allowed, the order of the District Forum against the first opposite party is set aside and the complaint is dismissed even against the first opposite party. No order as to cost in this appeal.
11. The Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made towards the mandatory deposit, to the appellant /first opposite party duly discharged, since appellants succeeded, and there is no need to retain the FDR.
J. JAYARAM M.THANIKACHALAM JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT