AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant/respondent was working with opposite party No.2 -Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation at Chandigarh. There was yet another employee by the same name working as Chaukidar in the said corporation. The names of the father of the complainant and Amarjit Singh, Chaukidar were also same. However, their dates of birth were different. When Amarjit Singh, Chaukidar retired from the service of opposite party No.2, the requisite documents were sent by the aforesaid organization to the petitioner for payment of his EPF dues. However, either by mistake, or on account of connivance, the account number of the complainant was mentioned in the aforesaid papers. The account number of the complainant was PH/1540/1207 whereas the account number of Amarjit Singh, Chaukidar was PH/1540/6485. The date of birth of Amarjit Singh, Chaukidar was correctly recorded in the EPF papers. The amount lying in the account of the complainant was paid by the petitioner to Amarjit Singh, Chaukidar. This happened on account of the account number of the complainant being mentioned in the EPF papers by opposite party No.2.
THE complainant had also taken an LIC policy which was linked with his EPF Account. The petitioner informed him that LIC premium for October 2003 was due for payment from his account but the amount in his account was not sufficient for the said payment. He was, therefore, advised to make payment directly to LIC, so as to avoid lapse of the policy. On inquiry, the complainant came to know that the petitioner had paid the amount lying in his EPF Account to Amarjit Singh, Chaukidar who retired way back in December, 2002. The opposite party No.2 then conducted an internal inquiry, held two of its officials responsible for the lapse and recovered the amount of Rs.4,63,028/ - from them. A new account was opened in the name of the complainant and the aforesaid amount was credited to the said account. However, interest on that amount was not credited to the newly opened account of the complainant. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.
THE complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the amount in question came to be released to Amarjit Singh, Chaukidar on account of mistake on the part of the opposite party No.2 which had wrongly given the account number of the complainant in the EPF papers of the said chaukidar. It was also pointed out in the reply that the aforesaid documents had been duly attested by opposite party No.2. The complaint was resisted by opposite party No.2 on the ground that there was a mistake on the part of its employee and they had recovered the amount in question and later deposited the same by getting new account opened in the name of the complainant.
THE District Forum vide its order dated 17 -09 -2014 passed the following order: "For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that both the OPs are responsible for the harassment caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service and malfunctioning of their officials. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed. OPs are directed: -
i) to calculate the interest on the amount of Rs.4,60,679/ - of the complainant withdrawn from his account on 17.12.2002 and deposited on 28.8.2012 at the end of each financial year after 17.12.2002 (as if the same was not withdrawn) and the same shall be credited in the new EPF account No.PN/1540/6770 of the complainant. The liability of both the OPs shall be joint and several.
ii) to make payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/ - each to the complainant towards compensation for harassment on account of deficiency in service.
iii) to make payment of an amount of Rs.7500/ - each to the complainant towards cost of litigation."
BEING aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 29 -10 -2014 the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.
IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire mistake having been committed by opposite party No.2, there was no justification to award any compensation against the petitioner, which had only acted upon the documents submitted to it by opposite party No.2. However, a perusal of the order of the State Commission would show that the date of birth of Amarjit Singh, Chaukidar was correctly recorded in the EPF papers, which were sent by opposite party No.2 to the complainant. Had the petitioner verified the date of birth recorded in the account of the complainant, it would have immediately come to know that considering his date of birth the complainant could not have retired in December, 2002. Therefore, though it cannot be denied that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party No.2, it would be difficult to say that there was no negligence at all on the part of the petitioner. The opposite party No.2 was negligent since they gave the account number of the complainant in the EPF papers of Amarjit Singh, Chaukidar whereas the petitioner was deficient in rendering services since before making payment of the amount accumulated in the EPF account of the complainant, they did not verify the date of birth recorded in the EPF documents received by them. Therefore, the District Forum and the State Commission were fully justified in granting compensation against both the opposite parties. If the petitioner has any grievance against opposite party No.2, it can initiate such proceedings as may be open to it any law against the said opposite party or it can avail an administrative remedy, to recover from opposite party No.2, the amount which it may have to pay to the complainant in compliance of the orders passed by the fora below. But, since both the opposite parties have been negligent in the matter, the order passed by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission cannot be faulted with. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.