Back
2010(2) CPR 433 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
B.N.P. Singh, Presiding Member and S.K. Naik, Member
The Branch Manager State Bank of India, Delhi —Petitioners
versus
Smt. Surinder Jain —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1803 of 2009
Decided on 20.4.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. A.V. Rangam, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Y.P. Bhan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where bank contributed to provident fund of employee, dispute regarding non-release of amount on retirement of employee would be consumer dispute.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(d)(o) —Non-release of retrial benefit i.e. Provident Fund amount to retired employee complainant by Bank—Foras below holding complainant to be a consumer and holding non-release of amount as deficiency in service directed petitioner bank to release amount Rs. 7,57,589 with interest at 9% p.a. —Revision—Provident fund was being contributed by employer petitioner—Services rendered by employee has to be considered service and employee to be a consumer and dispute raised was a consumer dispute—Non-release of amount was sought to be explained that bank received various attachment orders against loan raised by respondent with cooperative societies—There was however no order from any competent court—Bank was not entitled to exercise lien which it could have exercised only over fixed deposits as retrial benefit were on different footing—Bank was rightly held to be guilty of deficiency in service and impugned order was not to be interfered. (Paras 5 to 8)
B.N.P. Singh, Presiding Member —The respondent joined her service with petitioner -Bank sometimes in the year 1965 and was in service till 17.12.2000 in different capacity. It is not in dispute that she was not in service of the Bank on 18.12.2000. Both, Bank and respondent have a different version, as while Bank alleges forgery and misconduct on her part for which a disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the Bank and eventually she was driven out of the job. Respondent, however, states to have taken voluntary retirement from the job. Respondent after getting out of the job, sought payment of her terminal dues and in addition to the gratuity that were payable to her, she claiming payment of Rs.7,57,589 lying in her Provident Fund Account with the Bank authority. The issue thereafter, however, became debatable as the Bank on strength of attachment of restrain orders passed by different societies, defeating claim of respondent held that unless she would secure vacation order from authority concerned which issued attachment orders, Provident Fund amount shall not be released to her.
2. Aggrieved with denial of her claim by Bank, the employee took refuge to Consumer Fora filing complaint with District Forum. District Forum on consideration of the issue involved, accepting complaint, directed Bank to pay Rs. 7,57,589 with interest @ 9% per annum from 18.12.2000. Compensation of Rs.5,000 along-with litigation cost of Rs.3,000 was also awarded by District Forum. Appeal preferred by Bank did not find favour with State Commission and though material issue about maintainability of complaint filed by respondent against Bank was also raised, State Commission on examining various provisions of Consumer Protection Act, negating the issue raised on behalf of Bank, held respondent a ‘consumer’.
3. Issues that were raised before fora below are sought to be reiterated before us also. Obviously, rival contentions were raised by parties about maintainability of complaint before consumer fora. Learned counsel for Bank states that regard being had to relation of respondent employee with employer -Bank, the former was not covered within the purview of ‘Consumer’ as defined in Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and that part, in terms of Section 2(e) of the Act, the issue involved in the present context would not come within the meaning of Consumer dispute and even holding that respondent was a consumer, action resorted to by Bank in withholding GPF accumulation of respondent for valid reasons would not constitute deficiency in service of the petitioner. Stretching contentions, learned counsel states that intra-relationship between Bank and respondent was a contract of personal service and in that view of the matter also, services rendered by respondent would not attract, Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4. Regard being to nature of service rendered by employees to the State Government and Union Government that has been held to be not ‘service’ within the meaning of the Act. Application of this ratio however as for case under consideration need to be noticed.
The respondent rendered her service to Bank which is not a sovereign body, and that apart, we are told that both respondent and employer had been contributing to Provident Fund which accumulated in the account of respondent. An employee of a State Government or Central Government cannot raise consumer dispute the matter of payment of Provident Fund as the State Government or the Central Government are not contributing to the Provident Fund of their employees, in equal proportion. Almost in similar circumstances, in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi1, Hon’ble Apex Court, in the backdrop of contribution of Provident Fund by the employer, held that services rendered by employee is considered to be in service as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Services of Provident Fund Commissioner in running scheme was deemed to be ava
