AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 244 wordsTHE appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli dated 21.4.93 in O.P. 129/92. THE first opposite party is the appellant.
THE complainant has filed this complaint claiming the Employees'' Provident Fund due to her deceased husband. THE contention of the first opposite party appellant was that the amount has been paid to the complainant''s husband by money order. But he failed to produce any records to substantiate this claim. Consequently the District Forum directed the first opposite party/appellant to pay the Provident Fund amount to the complainant. Hence this appeal by the first opposite party. In the appeal, the appellant has filed a petition for the reception of additional documents and the additional documents show that the provident fund has been paid to the complainant''s husband. These additional documents are received.
The question whether the amount has been paid to the complainant''s husband has to be considered in the light of additional documents filed before us, and an opportunity must be given to all the parties to let in evidence for deciding the question whether the amount has really been paid to the complainant''s husband before he died. The matter has to go back to the District Forum below for fresh disposal.
IN the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Forum for fresh disposal. No costs. Appeal allowed.