KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No.591/2016
JUDGEMENT DATED: 31.10.2022
(Against the Order in C.C.No.89/2015 of CDRF, Kottayam)
PRESENT:
|
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN
|
:
|
PRESIDENT
|
|
SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH
|
:
|
JUDICIAL MEMBER
|
|
SRI. RANJIT R.
|
:
|
MEMBER
|
APPELLANT:
|
|
The Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Adithya Sabari Tower, Post Office Road, Thirunakkara, Kottayam – 686 001
|
(by Adv. K.V. Karmachandran)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
|
1.
|
Prathap Raj S., Karazhi House, Parassala P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 502
|
|
2.
|
The Managing Director, Hindustan News Print Ltd., News Print Nagar P.O., Kottayam – 686 616
|
(by Adv. V. Krishnamenon)
JUDGEMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
This appeal is filed by the 1st opposite party in C.C.No.89/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) challenging an order dated 29.06.2016 allowing the complaint. The complaint has been allowed by the District Forum finding deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and ordering an amount of Rupees ten thousand to be paid as compensation, together with an amount of Rupees five thousand as costs. The complainant is the 1st respondent herein and the 2nd opposite party is the 2nd respondent.
2. The 1st respondent was an employee of the 2nd respondent. He retired from service on 31.12.2012 on attaining superannuation. He is a member of the Employees Pension Scheme of the appellant with P.F. Account No.KR/KTM/0010290/000/0001058. The 2nd respondent had remitted contributions due from the 1st respondent for the period from March 2004 to January 2011. Altogether, 82 instalments were remitted. According to the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent had recovered an amount of Rs.50,854/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Four) in excess, from the salary of the 1st respondent and had remitted the same to the appellant. He came to know of the excess remittances only much later. Therefore, the 1st respondent submitted Form 10-C on 06.09.2012 to the appellant through the 2nd respondent seeking refund of the excess amounts deducted from his salary and remitted as stated above. However, the said Form 10-C was returned by the appellant on 17.12.2012 stating that, no Revenue Stamp of the value of Rupee One had been affixed thereon. The defect was cured and the form was re-submitted. But on 23.01.2013 the appellant issued a letter to the 2nd respondent requesting for an attested copy of the challan showing the remittance of Rs.50,854/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Four). On 10.06.2013 the 2nd respondent replied to the appellant stating that the 1st respondent had opted for pension on open scale, from March 2004 and the monthly remittances recovered had been remitted to the appellant till January 2011. They had also submitted Form 7(PS) and annual returns in time, containing the details of the remittances made. However, on 25.06.2013 the appellant again wrote to the 2nd res
Back
