K. UPENDRA vs REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 13.6.2004 passed in Appeal No. 21 of 2004 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh. The State Commission held that failure or delay in grant of advance to a person from his Provident Fund Account would not entitle him to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and, therefore, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum in C.D. No. 251 of 2001. Hence, the complainant has come in revision before us.

IN the present case, the complainant applied for an advance from his Provident Fund Account for purchase of house site on 10.10.1996. That application was rejected on 1.11.1996 on the ground that the complainant had already availed an advance from his provident fund account for house repairs during the year 1995-96, and, that there is no provision to grant loan if the member has earlier drawn advance for purchase of site, etc. Thereafter, the complainant had resubmitted the application on 18.11.1996 and this was again rejected on 16.1.1997 for the same reason. IN January, 1997, the complainant had again submitted the application and inadvertently the loan was granted on 5.10.1997, which the opposite party contends that it was a mistake on the part of the officers of the opposite party and that no recovery of the said illegal advance was initiated. But, by that time the complainant suffered loss because the contracting party forfeited the earnest money. In our view, the contention of the opposite party that the complainant is not entitled for grant of second advance, in terms of the Employees Provident Fund cheme, 1952, is unjustifiable and without any basis. For this, respondent placed reliance on Clause 68B of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The relevant portion thereof reads as under : "68B. Withdrawal from the Fund for the purchase of a dwelling house/flat or for the construction of a dwelling house including the acquisition of a suitable site for the purpose(1) The Commissioner, or where so authorised by the Commissioner, any officer subordinate to him, may on an application from a member in such form as may be prescribed and subject to the conditions prescribed in this paragraph sanction from the amount standing to the credit of the member in the fund, an withdrawal- (a) ...... (b) for purchasing a dwelling site for the purpose of construction of a dwelling house or a ready-built dwelling house/flat from any individual. ..................................... (2)(a) For the purpose of purchase of a site for construction of house thereon, the amount of withdrawal shall not exceed the member''s basic wages and dearness allowance for twenty-four months or the member''s own share of contributions, together with the employer''s share of contributions with interest thereon or the actual cost towards the acquisition of the dwelling site, whichever is the least. (3)(a) No withdrawal under this paragraph shall be granted unless- (i) the member has completed five years'' membership of the Fund; (ii) the member''s own share of contributions with interest thereon in the amount standing to his credit in the Fund is not less than one thousand rupee; (iii) a declaration from the member that the dwelling site or the dwelling house/flat or the house under construction is free from encumbrances and the same is under title of the member and/or the spouse; ........................................... (7) An additional withdrawal upto twelve months basic wages and dearness allowance or the member''s own share of contributions with interest thereon, in the amount standing to his credit in the Fund, whichever is less, may be granted in one instalment only, for additions, substantial alterations or improvements necessary to the dwelling house owned by the member or by the spouse or jointly by the member and the spouse.

The aforesaid clauses, in our view, nowhere prohibit grant of advance for purchasing a dwelling site for the purpose of construction of a dwelling house from the PF Account. The withdrawal for reconstruction/repair of the dwelling house is provided in Clauses 7, 7(a) and 7(b). Even for this purpose second advance can be granted. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondent that second withdrawal was not permissible is without any basis.

NEXT, it is contended by the respondent that even if there is delay in sanctioning the loan, yet, the petitioner is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and, therefore, delay in sanctioning the loan does not amount to deficiency in service and does not entitle him to file a complaint. In our view, this submission does not require further consideration in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC)=X (1999) SLT 395=(2000) 1 SCC 98, wherein the Court has held that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under the Act and the Scheme discharges statutory functions for running the scheme and running of such scheme would be service hired by the employee and the employee is beneficiary within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that because of the delay in sanctioning the loan, the petitioner had suffered a loss of Rs. 30,000 and that amount be awarded as compensation. In our view, this submission of granting compensation of Rs. 30,000 cannot be accepted, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the State Commission confirming the order passed by the District Forum is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition partly allowed.