Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Sunita Yadav, President, Dr. Monika Malik, Member
Assistant Bhavisya Nidhi Aayukt – Appellant
versus
Mohanbai Soni – Respondent
First Appeal No.1329 of 2016
(Arising out of order dated 09.08.2016 passed in C.C. No.341/2015 by District Commission, Ujjain)
Decided on 31.12.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Shri Rajeev Gautam, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms. Esheeta Khanna, Learned Counsel

IMPORTANT POINT
Claim to be a ‘consumer’ – Once an employee withdraws the full Provident Fund and Pension amount as a final settlement (availing benefits under Para 14 of EPS 1995), their membership in the fund ceases. They (or their heirs) cannot subsequently claim to be a “consumer” to demand a monthly pension, even if they offer to return the withdrawn amount.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act – Section 2(7) [or Section 2(1)(d) of 1986 Act] – Definition of Consumer – Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 – Para 6A and 14 – Cessation of Membership upon Final Withdrawal – Complainant remained a “consumer” after her husband had withdrawn the full PF and pension amount during his lifetime – Neither the deceased nor his legal heir (complainant) falls within the category of a “consumer” vis-à-vis the PF Commissioner for subsequent claims – Once the final settlement is made and the amount is withdrawn, the relationship of consumer and service provider ceases – No statutory PF contribution is required on such back wages, and it does not revive pension eligibility – Since the husband availed withdrawal benefits under Para 14 before his death, he ceased to be a member, disentitling the widow from claiming a monthly pension – Complaint dismissed – Appeal allowed.
Result: Appeal allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

ORDER :

Sunita Yadav, President—The opposite party/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ujjain (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.341/2015 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.

2. In short, the facts of the case are that complainant’s husband Kailash Soni was a driver in M. P. State Road Transport Corporation and he was terminated on 17.07.2000. Against which he approached the Labour Court and the Court set-aside the order of termination and ordered for payment of 50% of back wages on 07.04.2006 however, before passing of the said order, the complainant’s husband Kailash Soni passed away on 12.01.2004. Late Kailash Soni completed 15 years of continuous service till 17.07.2000 and 19 years of continuous service till the date of death i.e. 12.01.2004. It is alleged by the complainant that his PF No.MP/4044/4873 is still in existence and the complainant is a widow of 53 years of age and needs pension for maintenance but the opposite party deprived her from pension. The opposite party vide letter dated 10.09.2015 informed her that the complainant is not entitled to get any pension for which she is ready to deposit any additional amount towards contribution, if any. She therefore approached the District Commission seeking relief of monthly pension under Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995.

3. The opposite party in its reply before the District Commission resisted the complaint stating that the complainant is not a consumer as her late husband had already withdrawn PF amount Rs.48,180/- and the amount of Pension Rs.19,373/- towards final settlement from his PF Account No.MP/4044/4873 in June-2001. Therefore as per 6A of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 there is no eligibility of pension. As per order of the Labour Court, the rest amount deposited in her husband’s PF account with interest i.e. Rs.10,311/- had already been paid to the complainant on 29.01.2009. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any pension and in this regard, the complainant had already been informed vide letter dated 26.08.2013. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to calculate the amount of contribution of PF as per Employees Provident Fund Scheme,1995 and made available the calculation sheet to the complainant within one month. It is further directed that on deposition of contribution amount of PF as stated in calculation sheet by the complainant start the monthly pension of the complainant within one month.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is perverse and against the settled principles of law. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that learned District Commission ignored the fact that Late Kailash Soni, husband of the complainant had already withdrawn the entire amount from his PF Account No.MP/4044/4873 in June-2001 i.e. before his death and before filing of complaint on 26.10.2015. Under these circumstances, the complainant does not come within the purview of ‘consumer’ as his PF account has already been finally settled.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that the provident fund account of late husband of complainant remains active as the funds have not yet been disbursed to his wife and she has been deprived of monthly pension necessary for her maintenance. It is further argued that the complainant notified the opposite party that she does not wish to withdraw the accumulated amount instead sought to receive monthly pension. The complainant expressed willingness to repay any withdrawn pension amount and requested the payment of monthly pension. However, the opposite party informed her that she was not eligible for pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 whereas the PF

Click Here to Read the rest of this document