REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER versus SHIV KUMAR JOSHI

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 294 · Decided: 14-12-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.A 
B 
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER 
v. 
SHIV KUMAR JOSHI 
DECEMBER 14, 1999 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act: 1986-Section 2(J)(o) & 2 (1) (d)-Provident 
Fund Scheme, 1952-App/icability of the Act-On Provident Fund 
C Commissioner-Held, applicable because the scheme is a service within 
meaning of Section 2(J)(o), and the employee! the member of the scheme is 
a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(J)(d) and the service is for 
consideration, since the constitution of the scheme includes administrative 
charges-Plea that employee/member of the scheme not 'consumer' within 
the meaning of Section 2(l)(d) since administrative charges are not paid by 
D employee and that the appellant being Central Government cannot be said 
to be rendering service within the meaning of the Act-Pleas rejected, since 
the administrative charge are in lieu of the membership of the employee and 
no service is rendered to the employer under the scheme, which is framed for 
the benefit of the employee-The appellant being separate and distinct entity 
E from Central Government and not delegated with the sovereign powers of the 
State, held to be rendering service. 
Interpretation of Statute-To be given in such a way which serves_ the 
purpose intended to be achieved keeping in view the objects of statute. 
F 
Words & Phrases-'Consideration', 'Service' and 'Consumer '-Meaning 
of-In respect of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
Respondent, a member of provident fund scheme, filed a complaint before 
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal ~orum (District Forum), against 
the appellant alleging deficiency in service and claimed damages, since there 
G was some delay in payment of his provident fund by the appellant. District 
Forum directed the appellant to pay interest on delayed payment and costs. 
Appellants appeal to State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was 
dismissed. 
H 
In appeal to this court, the appellant contended that the Consumer 
294 
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER v. S.K. JOSHI 
295 
Protection Act was not applicable, as the scheme could not be held to be a A 
'service' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) and respondent is not 
'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection 
Act, because the contribution to the scheme was not for consideration and 
the appellant was only the custodian of the funds passed to him, and the 
employee cannot be said to be consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) B 
also because the administrative charges were paid by the employer and not 
the employee. It was further contended that the Central Government cannot 
be held to be rendering 'service' within the meaning and scheme of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Provident Fund Scheme, clearly and unambiguously C 
i!'dicate that the facilities provided by the scheme is a 'service' within the 
meaning of Section 2(1)(o) and the member a 'consumer' within the meaning 
o(Section 2(l)(d) of the Act. It is, therefore, without any substance to urge 
that the services under the scheme are rendered free of charge and, therefore, 
the scheme is not a 'service' under the Act. (309-A-BJ 
D 
1.2. The appellant cannot legally claim that the facilities provided by 
the 'scheme' were not 'service' or that the benefits under the scheme being 
provided were free of charge. The definition of 'consumer' under the Act 
includes not only the person who hires the 'service' for consideration but 
also beneficiary, for whose benefits such services are hired. Even ifit is held E 
that administrative charges are paid by the Central Government and no part 
of it is paid by the employee, the services of the Provident Fund Commissioner 
in running the scheme shall be deemed to have been availed of for consideration 
h)' the Central Government for the benefit of employees who would be treated 
as beneficiary within the meaning of that word used in the definition of F 
consumer. [308-A-C) 
Mis Spring Meadow Hospital & Anr. v. Harjo/ Ahluwalia through K.S. 
and Anr. J. T., (1998) 2 SC 620, relied on. 
1.3. It cannot be said that administrative charges are not payable by G 
employee; therefore the employee cannot be held to be consumer within the 
meaning of Section 2(l)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The 
Administrative Charges are in lieu of the membership of the employee and 
.,, for the services rendered under the scheme. It cannot be held that even though 
the emp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.