Consumer towards Provident Fund Commission

Laws laid down by Supreme Court in Provident Fund matters

Consumer towards Provident Fund Commission

RPFC V. Shiv Kumar Joshi, 2000 AIR (SC)331 : 2000 I LL J 552 : 2000(96) FJR 33 : 2000 I LL N 323 : 2000 LIC 232 : 2000 I CLR 2115 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 37 (SC.2J) 

It has been held that it is rendering of service for consideration as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The definition of “consumer” is not exhaustive and section 2(i)(o) exempts only such services as are rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service. The commissioners under the said Act give statutory service on payment of administrative charges which are levied and recoverable by the commissioner for payment of services rendered by the commissioner and the ancilliary staff and they are required to invest the contributions to the Employees Provident Fund like any other banker or financial institution to earn interest and to credit the interest to the subscribers account at such rate as may be determined by the Central Govt. In relation with Central Board .

Another related cases are :-
i) Kamlesh Vohra V. Central Provident Fund Commissioner & ors.1993 CPJ 232 (Delhi State Commission)

!!)Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V Bhavani SC(CP) p 563 decided on 22nd April 2008, held

“ that non payment of dues to the complainants[number of cases of similar nature on the similar point of law clubbed together ] under Employees Pension Schemes  amounts to deficiency in services .By becoming a member of the employees family pension scheme and contributing to the same ,one avails services rendered under section 2(1)(O) by the commission for implementing the scheme,hence is a consumer under section 2 ( 1 ) (d) of the act.” Supreme court has  not agreed with  the plea taken by Regional Provident Fund Commission that provident fund commission is not a service provider it being a statutary body

Supportive Judgments-Jagdish singh v State bank of Patiala and others, Decided on 27th Feb.2008 by Punjab SCDRC in appeal no 953 of 2006 p 633,CTJ


Comments are closed.