National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Provident Fund Commissioner vs Sulekha on 31 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: I(2008)CPJ306(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This Petition has been filed by the Provident Fund Commissioner, Kerala against the order of District Forum who had allowed the Complaint against which an appeal filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed with a little modification.
2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the husband of the Respondent/Complainant was a beneficiary of Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance (EDLI) from the Petitioner/Opposite Party. Husband of the Complainant died on 2.6.1990. While EPF was paid in time but after repeated requests, when the Insurance amount was not paid to the widow Complainant, she filed a complaint before the District Forum. During the pendency of the complaint the amount of insurance was paid on 1.1.1997 after a lapse of long seven years. The District Forum while noting this factum of payment held the Petitioner guilty of delayed payment and thus awarded interest @ 18% p.a. from 2.8.1990 till the date of payment Rs. 3000/- for mental agony and Rs. 250/- as cost. On an appeal filed by the Petitioner the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum reduced the rate of interest to 15% p.a. and deleted the amount of compensation in the light of interest being granted to the Complainant, hence the Petitioner.
3. It is argued before us that the complaint is not maintainable against the Petitioner as he is discharging a statutory function for which the State Commission wrongly relied upon the decision of this Commission in Regional Fund Commission, Faridabad v. Sivakumar Joshi (1996) (I) CPR - 82. It was the contention in the Revision Petition that State Commission ought to have appreciated that the decision is under challenge in the Supreme Court and operation of this order is stayed by them, hence, State Commission could not take advantage of this judgment. Rate of interest is Arbitrary and cannot be sustained. During the argument the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to Para 24 of Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976.
4. Sub para 4 of the para states that interest is payable only on account of deficiency and that too limited to 12% p.a.
5. This Commission had appointed Mr. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate to assist this Commission. He states that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already settled the law, in (2000) 1 SCC 88 in the same case cited earlier that the Complainant in such cases are consumers who hire the services of the Petitioner, hence, we see no merit in the first contention of the Petitioner that the complaint against the Petition is not maintainable as he is discharging statutory duties. Deficiency on the part of the Petitioner is so apparent. Both the lower Fora have found the petitioner to be deficient. We ourselves are concerned as to how long a widow of the deceased should want to get her dues? In this case she had to wait for 7 long agonizing years Deficiency is writ large on the face of it. We will, however, like to go by the provision of scheme under which rate of interest to be awarded could be 12% p.a. With a heavy heart, we reduce the rate of interest from 15% to 12% p.a. This amount along with the cost granted by the District Form be paid within six weeks failing which, the rate of interest shall go upto 18% p.a. only to the extent the petition is allowed. No order as to costs.