IMPORTANT POINT
After the death of son a mother would be a consumer in respect of claim for release of EPF amount of her son against employer.

Bhanwar Singh, President—Heard Mr. Vikas Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant complainant and Mr. C.K. Seth, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. A short but very significant question of law and fact arises for our determination and it is to the effect as to whether the appellant Smt. Munni Devi who lost her complaint before the Forum below, staked her claim for payment of interest on the EPF amount of Rs.20,011.46 in deposit with the EPF account of her son Sri Umesh Chand who was an employee of the Central Bank of India and who had unfortunately disappeared on 2.6.1990. The boy remains still untraceable. Smt. Munni Devi being the mother of her aforesaid unmarried son requested the Bank to release the EPF of her son but the Bank insisted that it could not be released unless her son was proved or deemed to be as dead. A person can be deemed to be as dead if he is not heard of by those who are his close kith and kin, for a period of 7 years. The Bank waited for these 7 years to lapse and when the said period expired the Bank insisted on another legal plea and asked Smt. Munni Devi to produce a. succession certificate authorizing her to claim release of the money.

3. It is not now in dispute that the aforesaid sum of Rs.20,011.46p. had been released to the appellant on Nov. 20,2001 but no interest was paid by the Bank. The complainant being aggrieved of the decision of the Bank preferred the complaint before the District Consumer Forum below. Having heard the pleas of the two parties, the Forum below recorded a finding that the complainant was not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act and on the basis of this finding her complaint was dismissed. This dismissal order has given rise to this appeal.

4. In order to adjudicate upon the issue as to whether the appellant is or is not a consumer we have to refer to the definition of “consumer” as postulated in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Certainly the first part relating to purchase of goods is not attracted. However, part two seems to be squarely applicable to the case of the complainant. Clause 2 provides as follows:

“(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and party promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].”

5. The above definition of the beneficiaries of service certainly seems to be applicable in the case of the appellant/complainant. There is no doubt that if the appellant’s son has been alive, he would have been a consumer as he was a member of the EPF but since he disappeared and he had no other legal heir except his mother namely Munni Devi, the widow of Sri Sidheshwar Shukla, she and she alone was the lone beneficiary of the said money. Needless to recall that Umesh Shukla was a bachelor and he disappeared and there was none else to survive him, in the family except the complainant. Asking the aggrieved complainant whose son has disappeared to wait for 7 years and after expiry of 7 years to bring a succession certificate was certainly a callous act of the Bank. The Bank authorities should have been considerate enough to appreciate the circumstances in which Munni Devi has been placed by losing her husband and son both. The contention that civil death of a person can be presumed only after 7 years of his disappearance may be legally true but there are lot many attending circumstances which must not have been lost sight of. For instance, if the complainant’s son was continuously absent from 2.6.1990 onwards the Bank was under an obligation to take recourse