Shashi Shekhar vs Managing Director M.A.D.A.

THE petitioner, an employee of the respondent, was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhanbad (District Forum for short). Under the scheme of Contributory Provident Fund, 12 % of his salary was being deducted by his respondent employer each month and was being deposited along with an equal amount required to be contributed by them in a savings bank provident fund account being maintained by the respondent for each one of the employees. Under the scheme, an employee was entitled to avail non-refundable loan after putting in 20 years of service, which was restricted to only three occasions and limited to 75% of the total amount of the Contributory Provident Fund. It is the say of the petitioner-complainant that while the respondent had earlier sanctioned a non-refundable loan of Rs.60,000/- for the purpose of construction of his house during the year 1996, when he later applied for the sanction of a non-refundable loan for Rs.1 Lakh for the purpose of higher education of his children, the respondent sanctioned and paid only Rs.50,000/-. Since, according to him, there was a balance of Rs.2,35,028/- as on November, 2000 and 75% of which works out to Rs.1,76,271/- there was absolutely no reason as to why his request for sanction of a sum of Rs.1 Lakh was reduced to 50%, which amounted to deficiency in service. He, therefore, knocked the doors of the District Forum, who vide order dated 09.02.2004 allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party/employer to pay to the petitioner-complainant balance non-refundable loan of Rs.50,000/- within a period of 40 days and in addition also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation, failing which the amount of Rs.50,000/- was to carry interest @ 12% per annum. Aggrieved thereupon, the respondent/opposite party filed an appeal before the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (State Commission for short), who by the order impugned allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and thereby dismissed the complaint. This order of the State Commission is now being challenged in this revision petition by the petitioner-complainant.

DESPITE issuance of notice and receipt of the acknowledgment due card of the learned counsel for the respondent, no one appears on their behalf. They are, therefore, proceeded ex-parte. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant and have also perused the records of the case.

The dispute falls within a very narrow compass. It pertains to the denial of service as per the terms of the Contributory Provident Fund scheme, inasmuch as when the Rules provided that an employee who has put in 20 years of service was entitled to avail non-refundable loan on three occasions, in the case in hand the employer has only partly accepted request of the petitioner-complainant for the availment of the second non-refundable loan. From the records, it is seen that the respondent employer has not controverted the claim of the petitioner-complainant that he had accumulated balance of Rs.2,35,028/-. His request for sanction of a non-refundable loan of Rs.1 Lakh could not have been reduced since according to the Rules he could be sanctioned non-refundable loan to the extent of 75% of the total sum so accrued to his account. The defence of the respondent employer that the savings bank account passbook of the petitioner-complainant did not reflect the balance as claimed by the complainant cannot be accepted on its face value since the respondent/opposite party have failed to deposit not only the employees contribution which was recovered from the salary but have also failed to deposit their part of the contribution for which the complainant could not have been denied his entitlement to receive non-refundable loan. The objection of the respondent that the dispute does not fall within the domain of consumer fora has no legs to stand since the law on the subject has been settled by the apex court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi [2000 AIR 331], in which it has been clearly held that operation of the employees provident fund scheme is a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and a member beneficiary under the scheme would be a consumer thereunder. Thus, the State Commission has gone wrong in setting aside the order of the District Forum. We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission and allow the revision petition and restore the order of the District Forum. No order as to cost.