• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Consumer forum sends warrant to PF Commissioner in Chennai

Our Legal Correspondent

CHENNAI, Sept. 6

A NON-BAILABLE arrest warrant has been issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for default in complying with the order of the forum directing the PF Commissioner to settl e the claims of a subscriber within the stipulated time.

The forum, comprising Mr. K. Ramaswamy, President, requested the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, to give necessary instructions to the police officer concerned to arrest the Respondent (Regional PF Commissioner) and to bring him before the forum on or b efore October 1, 2001, on any working day at 10.00 a.m.

The complainant, Mr K.G. Arunachalam of Mylapore, retired on September 4, 1974, and had since then been requesting the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to settle his claims. The opposite parties, the Regional PF Commissioner, Mumbai and the Regional PF Commissioner, Royapettah, Chennai, had not responded either for the legal notice or for the notice from this forum.

Though they had offered to file version, and in spite of granting 77 days time, the opposite parties, exhibited their negligence.

The complainant, it was submitted to the forum, had a

heart attack in 1996 and underwent an operation in 1998. All the letters addressed by the complainant to the opposite parties, had no response.

The complainant cited a notification issued by the Union Ministry of Labour ensuring settlement of PF claims within 30 days from date of receipt of claims by the PF Commissioner. The PF Commissioner had also been made personally liable for any delay beyo nd the stipulated period for settlement of claims.

Holding that the opposite parties were squarely liable for the deficiency in service, the forum said in its order dated April 17, 2001, that as the opposite parties had never cared even to respond, that the complainant had been languishing from 1974 to r eceive his lawful entitlements, i.e., pension, the opposite parties forgetting their moral obligation as PF Commissioners, and hence, they were personally liable to pay a compensation of Rs 80,000.

The forum said that the opposite parties were liable to pay Rs 17,291.36 with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from 1974 with pension arrears of Rs 1,40,000 with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from 1974 onwards till payment.

The opposite parties were directed to issue a letter of authority to draw further pension with a compensation of Rs 80,000 with cost of Rs 5,000. The payments were to be made within a month failing which the complainant was at liberty to invoke Section 2 7 of the Consumer Protection Act.