Tribunals and Commissions(1996) 01 NCDRC CK 0046

KULBHUSHAN KUMAR GUPTA vs DIRECTOR, JAndK FUNDS ORGANISATION

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 22 January 1996 · Citation: 1997 3 CPJ 353

HON’BLE JUDGES
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din , KrRameshwar Singh J.
RESULT
Complaint disposed of

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 716 words
1.

THIS complaint is based on the non-payment of GP Fund dues to the complainant who retired as an employee of the Cooperative Department on 31.5.1993. According to him he was making regular deductions from his pay towards his GP Fund account No. J-24897Dept/303 Coop. According to him while posted in Srinagar he had withdrawn a sum of Rs 15,000/- from the said amount vide Treasury Voucher Srinagar No. 156/ 8005 Dated 24.6.1987. His grievance now is that despite large number of efforts and repeated requests after his retirement his dues in account of GP Fund which he is entitled to receive with interest on usual rates has not been paid to him till date. We are not concerned with the other details mentioned in the complaint. The complaint has been contested only by respondent No. 2 i.e. District Fund Organisation, Jammu and the only plea is that they are constantly in touch with the Funds Organization, Srinagar which is not transferring the accounts of the complainant and in this state of things they are unable to find out the balance amount payable to the complainant. They have simply reproduced the details of the correspondence and in the ultimate analysis it is said that the amount of final refund of the GP Fund cannot be worked out without the transfer of balance by the District Fund Officer, Sri Nagar. They have denied any deliberate delay in the settlement of the account.

2.

IN view of these facts there is no need for us to go into the merits of the evidence led by the parties. The fact of the matter is that the complainant has not been paid the balance amount of his GP Fund and despite the fact that he retired in May, 1993. Mr. Jamwal has fairly stated before us today that after the complaint was filed less than 75% payment was made in the month of Nov. 1995 but the total refund is still undecided. There is no denial by the opposite party that the claim of the complainant is genuine. All that they want to say is that they are facing a difficulty because a wing of their Department is not cooperating with them. The result is that District Fund, Srinagar is not transferring the accounts of the complainant. We are not able to understand as to the purpose for which this defence is being set up. If one wing of the Organization is not cooperating the Organisation itself is to be blamed and if the settlement is delayed due to non-cooperation by a particular wing of the Department, the Department cannot be absolved of the responsibility. Obviously the entire blame lies with the opposite party in not settling the claim. It is not possible for us to assess the amount due to the complainant. That of course will have to be worked out by the opposite party and if necessary the complainant will have to submit his own accounts before us. IN the circumstances of this case therefore we make the following directions: "That the opposite party District Fund Officer Jammu shall settle and pay the balance amount of the GP due to the complainant within the next eight weeks. The District Fund, Jammu if it is necessary for them to do so shall depute a Special Officer to collect the records from the District Fund, Srinagar. The total amount found due shall be paid alongwith the usual interest calculated up to date of payment. Should opposite party fail to do so it shall be liable to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 100/- per day for each day of default after the period of eight weeks. The amount of compensation if it becomes due shall be paid by the District Fund from its own funds. It shall however conduct a domestic enquiry, locate the responsibility of the officer/officials who are responsible for the lapse and neglect and then recover any amount of compensation that may fall due to the complainant from the pay dues or pensionary dues of such officer/officials. Should District Fund, Jammu fail to provide the relief within the period directed by us the complainant can also invoke Section 21 of the J&K State Consumers Protection Act."

The complaint is disposed of. Complaint disposed of. _______________