P. Subramanian vs Srivilliputhur Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd.

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiencies in service on the part of the respondent. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant was an employee of the respondent from where according to him the petitioner has resigned, but as per respondent he was dismissed with effect from 15.4.1999. But when his provident fund amount was not being settled, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties and perusal of the record partly allowed the complaint by awarding Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000 towards cost. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition was filed.

NOTICE was issued to the petitioner. He has shown his inability to attend in person and has sent written arguments. We have gone through the whole material very carefully and find that there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was dismissed after proper inquiry from the respondent. It is also true that the respondent took some time in paying the due amount, but as per material on record the interest for the delayed was paid from 15.4.1999 to the date of payment; since there was inordinate delay for payment, the petitioner was compensated by way of interest. The District Forum in the circumstances awarded Rs. 5,000 for mental agony and Rs. 1,000 as costs. It is the contention of the petitioner that he should be given a compensation of Rs. 50,000. After seeing the material on record we are satisfied that it was the petitioner who took his own time in submitting the application and also completing the formalities and he cannot be absolved of the deficiency on his part. We also need to appreciate that the respondents have already paid the due amount along with interest. Despite this, District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000 which in our view, in the facts and circumstances, are in order. There is a concurrent finding of fact based on which relief has been given by the District Forum and affirmed by State Commission.

There is no question of law or jurisdictional error alleged before us to call for our interference in exercise of our powers under revisional jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act.

THIS revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.