New Delhi, April 24: Provident fund officials who sit on files and harass people by demanding one document after another can now be held liable under the consumer protection law.

The Supreme Court has brought the provident fund under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, removing a grey area.

“The regional provident fund commissioner… must be held to be a ‘service giver’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)() of the Consumer Protection Act,” a two-judge bench ruled on Tuesday.

The verdict came on a case involving Bhavani, a retired employee of the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited, who had been denied her benefits under a PF pension scheme.

The regional provident fund commissioner had argued that the consumer act did not apply to a claim made under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and that Bhavani was not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the act.

This section basically says a consumer is a buyer of goods or one who has hired a “service”.

A district consumer forum had rejected the commissioner’s argument, citing that Section 2(1)() of the consumer act exempted only those “services” that were rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service. So, provident fund authorities did count as service givers.

The apex court agreed, as had the Kerala state consumer commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Bhavani, who worked in one of the state corporation’s cashew factories, retired on December 31, 1995, after she turned 60 (her service records give her date of birth as December 31, 1935).

She was a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and was making a contribution to the scheme.

By the time she retired, the 1971 pension scheme had been replaced by a 1995 pension scheme. The regional provident fund commissioner denied her pension under either scheme.

Bhavani, rather unusually, filed an application before the Kollom district consumer forum.

Other than arguing that his office was beyond the ambit of consumer law, the commissioner claimed that according to PF records, Bhavani had turned 60 in 1992, three years before the 1995 pension scheme came into effect.

The commissioner argued that she was not entitled to pension either under the 1971 scheme, which had expired, or under the 1995 scheme that was to benefit only members who had turned 60 on or after April 1, 1993. The district forum rejected this argument, too.