The Hindu Business Line : SC rules provident fund subscriber is ‘consumer’

“Nor is this a case of rendering of free service or rendering of service under a contract of personal services as to bring the relationship between the appellant and the respondent (subscriber) within the concept of ‘master and servant’.”

J. Venkatesan

New Delhi, April 24 The Supreme Court has held that services rendered by the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation will fall within the ambit of ‘service’ under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act (1986) and the subscriber under the Provident Fund scheme is a ‘consumer’ under this Act.

A Bench of Mr Justice Altamas Kabir and Mr Justice V.S. Sirpurkar rejected the contention of the RPF Commissioner (appellant) that the services rendered to the subscribers under the provident fund scheme was not a service under the Consumer Protection Act and such subscribers could not seek remedy under the Act.

The appellant submitted that the service amounted to ‘personal service’ which was of a free nature and would not attract the provisions of Act.

Writing the judgment, Mr Justice Kabir said “a perusal of the scheme, clearly and unambiguously indicates that it is a ‘service’ within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(o) and the member a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.”

The Bench said: “The RPF Commissioner responsible for the working of the 1995 Pension Scheme must be held to be a ‘service giver’ under the CP Act. Nor is this a case of rendering of free service or rendering of service under a contract of personal services as to bring the relationship between the appellant and the respondent (subscriber) within the concept of ‘master and servant’.”

In the instant case, respondent Ms Bhavani was a worker in a cashew factory in Naduvathoor that was owned and managed by the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd, Kollam. She retired from service on December 31, 1995, on attaining 60 years of age.

Ms Bhavani was a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme (1971), and was making contribution to the scheme. Though she was eligible for pension, the same was not ordered by the RPF Commissioner.

Aggrieved, she moved the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam which directed the appellant to release her pensionary benefits. This was confirmed by the State Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The present appeal by the RPF Commissioner is directed against this order. Subsequently five more appeals were heard along with this matter.

The Supreme Court Bench upheld the orders passed by the National Commission and dismissed the appeals.

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Social Security | Consumerism

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page