AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AGGRIEVED by the order dated 18.8.2006 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raipur (in short, the Act ''), the Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant ( opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum) has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 26.6.2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Durg in complaint case No. 41/05 filed by Smt. Dileshwari Bai wife of late Jagdish Prasad Soni who was employed with the petitioner - company who had died in harness on 24.12.2003. The complainant in the complaint alleged that petitioner had unlawfully withheld/adjusted a sum of Rs. 83,685 lying in the credit in the provident fund account of her late husband and was also coerced up to pay a sum more than Rs. 26,000 towards the settlement of the outstanding House Building Advance which her husband has taken during his life-time. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner herein inter alia on the gound that said amount was adjusted towards the balance unpaid House Building Advance as per own request of the complainant as she wanted to clear of all the dues of her late husband in the hope that she could get an employment for her son on compassionate basis. It was denied that any illegality or deficiency in service was committed by the petitioner in adjusting the amount of provident fund lying in the account of deceased Jagdish Prasad. The District Forum on consideration of the respective pleas and evidence and material brought on record allowed the complaint with the direction to the petitioner to pay to the complainant the amount of the provident fund i.e. Rs. 83,685 along with interest @ 9% p.a. on the entire amount from the date of death of Jagdish Prasad till the date of relief besides a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental torture and Rs. 500 as cost of litigation. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the District Forum. Hence this petition.
WE have heard Mr. K.K. Rai, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel representing the petitioner - company and Mr. M.Venkaya Raju, Authorised Representative of the respondent and have considered their respective submissions. During the course of his submissions, Mr. M.Venkaya Raju has tried to rake up hosts of controversies like several mal practices adopted and practised by the petitioner - company, the correctness of their statement of accounts as also about their unsympathetic attitude in not giving the employment to the son of the complainant on compassionate ground after the death of his father in harness, he having completed about 27 years of service in all. But going by the averments and allegations made in the complaint and relief sought and granted, we must necessarily restrict our consideration to the consumer dispute raised by the complainant in the complaint.
THE question which arose before the Fora below and is still before this Commission for consideration is as to whether the petitioner-company has committed any deficiency in service by adjusting the amount of Rs. 83.685 lying in the provident fund account of late Jagdish Prasad towards the unpaid balance House Building Advance. It appears that the complainant in this case was harping over the provisions of Section 10 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 which made a provision for Protection Against Attachment of the provident fund. We would like to extract the same below: "Protection against attachment. (1) amount standing to the credit of any member in Fund or of any exempted employee .in a provident fund shall not in any way be capable of being assigned or charged and shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the member or the exempted employee, and neither the official assignee appointed under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909) nor any receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920), shall be entitled to have any claim on any such amount. (2) Any amount standing to the credit of a member in the fund or of an exempted employee in a provident fund at the time of his death and payable to his nominee under the Scheme or the rules of the provident fund shall, subject to any deduction authorised by the said Scheme or rules, vest in the nominee and shall be free from any debt or other liability incurred by the deceased or the nominee before the death of the member or of exempted employee and shall also not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any Court. (3) The provisions of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the pension or any other amount, payable under the Pension Scheme and also in relation to any amount payable under the Insurance Scheme as they apply in relation to any amount payable out of the Fund. "
BASED on the provisions of law, submission of the respondent-complainant is that the amount lying in the provident fund account could not be adjusted towards any dues including the House Building Advance. As against this, submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has neither appropriated, attached nor adjusted the amount of Rs. 83,685 lying in the provident fund account of Jagdish Prasad voluntarily or by itself but it was done pursuant to a specific request made by the complainant herself vide a communication dated 23.4.2004 (Annexture P7, page 33 of the Paper Book). It is pointed out that besides making a request for recovering the outstanding dues of Rs. 1,05,900, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 26,000 by a receipt dated 14.6.2004 because amount lying in the fund was not sufficient to square up the outstanding balance amount of the House Building Advance amounting to Rs. 1,09,589. That even after adjusting a sum of Rs. 83,685, she was required to pay a sum of Rs. 26,000. Counsel submits that it was under these circumstances that the outstanding HBA was squared up which in no way can be said in violation of the provisions of Section 10 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. In this regard, he has referred with advantage to the extracts from Advanced Law Lexicon complied and Edited by P.Ramanatha Aiyar as to what the term "Attachment " means besides referring to the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Wazir Chand v. Union of India and Others, VII (2000) SLT 359=(2001) 6 SCC 596; Gorakhpur University and Others v. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and Others., V (2001) SLT 648=(2001) 6 SCC 591; Jagannath Banik v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board, 1995 Lab.IC 923; and Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai, 1951 SCR 548. We do not wish to burden this opinion by referring in detail with the said decisions but on a reading of the same, one thing is clear that term "Attachment " is definitely in contrast with any consensual adjustment/payment made. By no stretch it can be said that before receiving the request of the respondent, the petitioner had made any attempt to either attach or appropriate the amount of Rs. 83,685 lying the provident fund account of the Jagdish Prasad. It was the respondent - complainant who of her own free will had approached the petitioner for making payment of the outstanding dues from the amount payable to her. After adjusting the temporary advance taken by the deceased, a sum of Rs. 83,685 was there. If the complainant wanted and had prayed for its payment, the petitioner would have certainly disbursed the said amount to the respondent - complainant without any rancour. Going the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, in our view, the petitioner has not committed any deficiency in service by acceding to the request of the respondent in adjusting the amount of provident fund payable to her against the outstanding dues of her husband. To say that respondent-complainant had made such a request under any coercion is a far fetched plea which we cannot accept at this stage. May be that respondent-complainant was advised to do so in the hope that on doing so, she can claim appointment for her son on compassionate basis after all the dues pertaining to her husband had been cleared.
IT is surprising that despite the above documents placed on record and it having been shown to the Fora below that the amount of Rs. 83,685 lying the provident fund had already been adjusted towards dues of her husband as per her own request, the Fora below have directed the petitioner to pay again a sum of Rs. 83,685 to the complainant. The authorized representative of the respondent pointed out some discrepancy in the amount of Rs. 1,09,589 which was stated to be due towards HBA as according to him, the advance amount was not Rs. 2,73,134 but it was only Rs. 2,67,000. If that is so, the HBA account could be rehauled by the petitioner to remove such a discrepancy.
HAVING considered the matter from different angles, we are of the view that the Fora below fell into grave error of law and facts to allow the complaint and to pass the order for payment of the aforesaid amount to the complainant. The orders are legally unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. In the result, revision petition is allowed and impugned order passed by the Fora below are hereby set aside and complaint will be deemed to have been dismissed. However, in case any discrepancy is pointed out by the respondent in the calculation of the amount due and paid by the complainant, the same may be brought to the notice of the petitioner and the officer present undertakes to reconcile the same in accordance with law. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of. Revision Petition allowed.