Case: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Bhavani

which was upheld up to the National Commission to direct the appellant herein to correct its records relating to the date of birth of the respondent, was erroneous and could not be sustained.15. In this regard, various decisions of this Court were referred to by Dr. Padia in support of his contention that contract of personal service or a service rendered free of charge would not attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dr. Padia urged that the services rendered by the appellant to the respondent amounted to personal service which was of a free nature and would not, therefore, attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act on both counts. According to Dr. Padia, the respondent could at best have asked for pensionary benefits under the 1971 Employees Family Pension Scheme which had been replaced by the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.16. Dr. Padia lastly urged that the District Forum had no jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act to direct alteration of the date of birth of a member which was recorded in the records of the appellant, and, that too, without holding any inquiry in that regard. 17. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Noor Mohammed, learned advocate for the respondent in Special Leave Petition No.8661 of 2004, submitted that in a similar case involving the same set of facts, being Special Leave Petition No.9667 of 2005, this Court by order dated 26.3.2007 had dismissed the special leave petition. He, therefore, submitted that the arguments advanced by Dr. Padia were of no consequence in view of the order passed in Special Leave Petition No.9667 of 2005 wherein one K. Sarojini was the complainant before the District Forum.18. Mr. V. Prabhakar disputed Dr. Padias contentions and submitted that the entries relating to the date of birth of the respondent in the records of the company and not that recorded in the records of the appellant were relevant for the purpose of determining the date of superannuation of the employee concerned. It was submitted that stress had been erroneously laid on the alleged entry in the records of the appellant to wrongfully deny the benefits of the 1995 Employees Pension Scheme to the respondent. It was also submitted that various records had been produced on behalf of the respondent, including documentary evidence from the company, in order to establish her claim that her date of birth had been entered in her service records with the company as 31.12.1935. 19. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the relevant documents which had been produced before the District Forum and we are satisfied that the dates of birth of the respondents as recorded in their service records with the company are the correct dates of birth of the employees and not the dates of birth as entered in the records of the appellant. The reasoning given by the District Forum in accepting the entries in the companys record while rejecting those in the records of the appellant/Regional P.F. Commissioner are based on sound logic and the materials on record. For instance, there are certificates issued by the company to indicate that the respondent in C.A. No.6447/2001 had continued to work in the company till her date of superannuation i.e. 31.12.1995 and there was no denial on the part of the appellant that the respondent continued to contribute to the fund till the year 1995. No explanation is forthcoming as to why and how such contributions were received, even though according to the records of the appellant the respondent had retired on 31.12.1992, so as to make her ineligible for the 1995 Employees Pension Scheme which came into operation on and from 1st April, 1993.20. Dr. Padias submissions regarding the non-applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to the case of the respondent must also be rejected on account of the fact that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who is the person responsible for the working of the 1995 Pension Scheme, must be held to be a service giver within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Nor is this a case of rendering of free service or rendering of service under a contract of personal service so as to bring the relationship between the appellant and respondent within the concept of master and servant. In our view, the respondent comes squarely within the definition of consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant for implementation of the Scheme. The same is the case in the other appeals as well. 21. In fact, the same proposition has been explained in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi [2000 (1) SCC 98 ], wherein in relation to the operation of the Consumer Protection Act to the Employees Provident Fund Schemes it was held as follows: "A peru`ot a service under the Act. Both the State as well as the National Commission have dealt with this aspect in detail and rightly come to the conclusion that the Act was applicable in the case of the Scheme on the ground that its member was a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) and the Scheme was a service under Section 2(1)(o)." 22. Several other earlier decisions were also referred to, where a similar view has been expressed. 23. We are not also able to appreciate Dr. Padias submission that the cases of the respondents should not be considered as they had applied at the fag end of their careers for correction of their dates of birth in the appellants records, which practice had been strongly discouraged by this Court. The aforesaid principle cannot apply to the case of the respondents as their dates of birth had been correctly recorded in the records of the company, including the respondents service records, on the basis whereof they had retired from the companys services.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]19. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the relevant documents which had been produced before the District Forum and we are satisfied that the dates of birth of the respondents as recorded in their service records with the company are the correct dates of birth of the employees and not the dates of birth as entered in the records of the appellant. The reasoning given by the District Forum in accepting the entries in the companys record while rejecting those in the records of the appellant/Regional P.F. Commissioner are based on sound logic and the materials on record. For instance, there are certificates issued by the company to indicate that the respondent in C.A. No.6447/2001 had continued to work in the company till her date of superannuation i.e. 31.12.1995 and there was no denial on the part of the appellant that the respondent continued to contribute to the fund till the year 1995. No explanation is forthcoming as to why and how such contributions were received, even though according to the records of the appellant the respondent had retired on 31.12.1992, so as to make her ineligible for the 1995 Employees Pension Scheme which came into operation on and from 1st April, 1993.20. Dr. Padias submissions regarding the non-applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to the case of the respondent must also be rejected on account of the fact that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who is the person responsible for the working of the 1995 Pension Scheme, must be held to be a service giver within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Nor is this a case of rendering of free service or rendering of service under a contract of personal service so as to bring the relationship between the appellant and respondent within the concept of master and servant. In our view, the respondent comes squarely within the definition of consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant for implementation of the Scheme. The same is the case in the other appeals as well.We are not also able to appreciate Dr. Padias submission that the cases of the respondents should not be considered as they had applied at the fag end of their careers for correction of their dates of birth in the appellants records, which practice had been strongly discouraged by this Court. The aforesaid principle cannot apply to the case of the respondents as their dates of birth had been correctly recorded in the records of the company, including the respondents service records, on the basis whereof they had retired from the companys services.