REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. SHIV KUMAR JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but an important question of law to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') can be invoked against the Provident Fund Commissioner by a member of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme It has to be ascertained as to whether any such member is a 'consumer' and the duties performed by the Provident Fund Commissioner under the relevant scheme is a 'service' within the meaning of the Act. If it is held that such member is the 'Consumer' and the facilities provided are 'services', it has to be further considered as to whether the delayed payment of the provident fund to a member-employee amounts to deficiency of service under the Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondent, who was a member of the Provident Fund Scheme, applied to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for the payment of his provident fund on 15th July, 1992. It was found that the application filed was not complete as rquired by Para 72(5)(d) of the Provident Fund Scheme applicable in the case. The appellant forwarded the application to the Respondent's employer for verification in terms of the said para. The inspector of the appellant is also stated to have visited the factory, where the respondent-employee was working, to impress upon the employer to expedite verification of the application. The appellant's Area Inspector is stated to have personally gone to the factory on 19th August, 1992 and obtained the verification application. The claim of the respondent was settled on 24th August, 1992. However, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") on 26th August, 1992 alleging dificiency in service of the appellant and claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 65,000/- along with costs for the alleged delay in payment of his provident fund. The appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the District Forum on the ground that the respondent was not a 'consumer' and the facilities provided by the scheme were not a 'service'. The District Forum vide its order dated 4-11-1992 directed the appellant to pay interest @18% on delayed payment and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the appellant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") under S. 15 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed by the State Commission on 1-3-1994. The revision filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the National Commission") was dismissed vide the order impugned in this appeal.

(3.) Taking us through the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, Shri N. N. Gowswamy, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the said scheme could not be held to be a 'service' within the meaning of S. 2(1)(o) and the respondent No. 1 as 'consumer' within the meaning of S. 2(1) (d) of the Act. It was urged that as the Provident Fund Commissioner was the custodian of the funds passed to him and the contribution to the scheme was not for consideration, the Act was not applicable.