KERALA CONSUMER PROTECTION CENTRE vs DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER

IN this batch of six revision petitions, petitioner was the complainant. There is challenge to the order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the appeals of the petitioner against the orders of the District Forum which in turn had dismissed the complaints. The impugned order of the State Commission is dated 27.4.1998 and these petitions have been filed on 19.4.2001 almost three years after the date of the impugned order. Though the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not provide for any limitation for revisions yet the Act sets a time schedule for decisions of the complaints. It is important that revision petitions should be filed at an early date. Period for filing appeal is 30 days. IN our view, revision should ordinarily be filed within a period of 90 days otherwise it is likely to be dismissed on the ground of laches. There is no explanation whatsoever why it took three years for the petitioner to come to the National Commission after the order of the State Commission. On this ground alone we are inclined to dismiss these petitions as barred by laches. Even before the State Commission appeals were filed beyond the period of limitation. But the delay was however, condoned.

PETITIONER represents the owners and employees of certain stage carriage vehicles in the State of Kerala representing the interest of employers. Complaints were filed against the order of the District Executive Officer under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers'' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (for short ''Kerala Act''), assessing the amounts payable by them under the scheme framed under the said Act. These employers were directed to remit various amounts towards the provident fund of the staff working under them for certain period. It was complained that no proper enquiry was held by the District Executive Officer as required under Section 8 of the Kerala Act. It would appear against the order of the District Executive Officer appeals are also filed before the State Government. It is not clear from the records as to the result of those appeals. Be that as it may, question that arises for consideration is if District Forum had jurisdiction in the matter as that was the ground on which complaints were dismissed and the order of dismissal was upheld by the State Commission in appeals. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. C.N. Sreekumar, Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC)=X (1999) SLT 395=(2000) 1 SCC 98, to contend that Consumer Forum would certainly have jurisdiction in the matter and the impugned order of the State Commission is palpably wrong. We do not think that Mr. Sreekumar is right in his submission. Supreme Court in the aforesaid case after examining in depth provisions of Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder held that an employee-member of Employees'' Provident Fund Scheme is a consumer and duties performed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under the Scheme is service within the meaning of Clauses (d) and (o) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act. In that case before the Supreme Court it was the employee who was aggrieved for not having been paid certain amounts from his provident fund and he complained deficiency in service.

In the present case it is employer who feels aggrieved by the order of the District Executive Officer. Kerala Act has been enacted to provide for the constitution of the Fund to promote the welfare of motor transport workers in the State. Funds means the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund established under the Scheme which has been framed under Section 3 of the Kerala Act. Scheme has been framed for the establishment of a Fund under this Act for the employees. Section 4 provides for contribution to the Fund. Contribution shall be paid by the employer to the Fund which shall be 8% of the wages for the time being payable to each of the employees and employees contribution should be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of him. However, this provision would not apply where the provisions of the Central Act i.e. Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are applicable. Under Section 8 of Kerala Act the Chief Executive Officer or any other officer appointed by him determines the amount due from any employer under the provisions of the Act or of the Scheme and for that purpose may conduct such enquiry as he may deem necessary. This section also provides as to how the enquiry to be conducted and certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to apply. The enquiry is deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of Indian Penal Code and for the purposes of Section 196 of that Code. The specific provisions which require giving of reasonable opportunity to the employer of being heard any person aggrieved by the order made by the Chief Executive Officer or any other person authorised by him can prefer an appeal to the State Government and the decision of the Government on such appeal is made final. It is thus at once seen that the Act and the Scheme does not provide for any service to the employer nor employer can be termed as consumer within these provisions. Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Joshi (supra), is certainly not applicable in the present case. Moreover, it is not for the Consumer Court to oversee the working of the Scheme.

ANOTHER grievance of the petitioner is that certain forms were not supplied to them in Spite of their having written to the District Executive Officer. These are all statutory forms and form part of the Scheme. It was not necessary for the petitioner to approach the District Executive Officer for the purpose. Petitioner could very well copied the form from the Scheme. Lastly we may point out so far as the petitioner represents the interest of the employers its name is a misnomer. There is no merit in these petitions. These are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.