Court case(2000) 1 SCC 98

The respondent, Shiv Kumar Joshi, was a member of the scheme framed under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, to which he and his employer had contributed. He complained to the consumer forum of a deficiency on the part of the Provident Fund authorities in dealing with and paying the amount due to him under the scheme, and the fora below granted him relief. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner appealed, contending that the Commissioner performs statutory functions in administering a social-security scheme, that the member pays nothing to the Commissioner, and that the relationship is not one of a consumer hiring a service for consideration.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The scheme is a service made available to the members; the contributions made by the employee (and by the employer on his behalf), together with the administrative charges, are the consideration for it; and the Commissioner, as the authority administering the scheme, is a service provider. The statutory character of the scheme does not exclude the Act, which is an additional remedy and applies to statutory bodies rendering services. A member of the scheme is therefore a consumer, and default in settling his dues is a deficiency in service.