Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 203 (UTT)

BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED v. RAMPAL

2015-04-09

B.C.KANDPAL, D.K.TYAGI, VEENA SHARMA

body2015
ORDER : (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 16.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 24 of 2007. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed that in case the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 submit the loan application through proper channel, the appellants should immediately forward the same to the concerned officer for sanctioning of the loan. The District Forum has also directed the appellants to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to respondent Nos. 1 to 10. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainants were the workmen of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Haridwar and their services were terminated w.e.f. 01.12.1988. The said matter went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was alleged that the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Haridwar to re-employ the complainants directly or through contractor. It was also alleged that in the meantime, the complainants were paid certain wages to the tune of Rs. 1,97,690.94/- each and 12% amount was recovered towards provident fund contribution. The complainants later on applied for temporary loan from their provident fund, but the loan was not sanctioned. Therefore, the complainants filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar for direction to the opposite parties to arrange the payment of temporary loan against the applications submitted by them to the General Manager (HR), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Haridwar and also claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each. 3. The appellants filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the amount deducted from the wages of respondent Nos. 1 to 10 has already been sent to respondent No. 11 – Employees Provident Fund Organization, Dehradun; that the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 are the employees of the contractor; that the competent authority for sanction of the loan is Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun; that in case the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 apply for loan through their contractor and complete the required formalities, their application would be forwarded to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun for necessary action and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The respondent Nos. 11 and 12 herein (opposite party Nos. 1 to 10 apply for loan through their contractor and complete the required formalities, their application would be forwarded to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun for necessary action and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The respondent Nos. 11 and 12 herein (opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 before the District Forum) did not appear before the District Forum and hence the District Forum vide order dated 07.03.2007 and 09.09.2009 respectively proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against them. 5. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 16.09.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 6. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No. 11 and have also perused the record. 7. The perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Forum shows that the District Forum has itself accepted the version of the appellants that in case the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 apply for loan through proper channel and complete the required formalities, their loan application would be forwarded to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun and that the competent authority for sanction of the amount is Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun. 8. Thus, it is clear from the impugned order of the District Forum that the District Forum has itself accepted that the complainants have not applied for loan through proper channel. Since the appellants have got no concern with the sanction of the loan and hence in case the loan has not been sanctioned, the appellants can not be held liable for the same. The District Forum has also not held any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. We are surprised that when the District Forum did not held any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and accepted the contention of the appellants that the competent authority for sanction of the loan amount is Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun, then as to why the District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- against the appellants. We are not in agreement with the District Forum on the said count and the said award of Rs. 10,000/- against the appellants. We are not in agreement with the District Forum on the said count and the said award of Rs. 10,000/- passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside and the impugned order is liable to be modified accordingly. This way, the appeal succeeds partly. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 16.09.2010 passed by the District Forum is modified to the extent that the award of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- passed by the District Forum against the appellants is set aside. Rest of the order passed by the District Forum is maintained. No order as to costs.