The Hindu : New Delhi News : PF subscriber a consumer: Supreme Court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 25, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

New Delhi

New Delhi

PF subscriber a consumer: Supreme Court

Legal Correspondent

Bench rejects argument that the organisation is providing free service

RPF Commissioner responsible for pension scheme is ‘service giver’
Court upholds consumer forum’s order on pension payment

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that the services rendered by the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner come within the ambit of “service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and a subscriber of the Provident Fund scheme is a “consumer” under this Act.

A Bench consisting of Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice V.S. Sirpurkar rejected the contention of the RPF Commissioner (appellant) that the service rendered to the subscribers 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 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 this case, respondent Bhavani was a worker in a cashew factory at Naduvathoor, owned and managed by the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited, Kollam. She retired from service on December 31, 1995, on attaining 60 years of age.

As a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme, 1971, she was eligible for pension, but the same was not ordered by the RPF Commissioner.

Moves consumer forum

Bhavani moved the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Kollam and it directed the appellant to release her pensionary benefits. This was confirmed by the State Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

This was followed by the RPF Commissioner’s appeal against this order in the Supreme Court. 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.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

New Delhi