REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs Mohd. Saleem

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against order dated 3.3.2003 in Complaint Case No. 410/02 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called as District Forum for short), directing opposite party/appellant to pay to the complainant/respondent Rs.87,309/- towards payment of his Employees'' Provident Fund amount.

THE facts not now in dispute are : that the complainant/respondent herein, was an employee of M.P. Road Transport Corporation. He retired on 30th September, 1999 from Sub-depot Sarangarh. It is also not in dispute that the complainant/respondent was a member of Employees'' Provident Fund and held A/c. No. MP/2249/1260 at Raigarh Depot. He was subsequently transferred from Raigarh to Sub-depot Sarangarh. THE Account No. was changed to 4047/3344 at Sarangarh Sub-depot, as per practice of the Corporation. THE complainant after his retirement filed application for payment of the amount of his Employees'' Provident Fund. However, despite his efforts, the amount was not paid to him. Ultimately, the complainant/respondent on 2.5.2002 sent a notice to the opposite party/appellant along with Form No.19 prescribed under the Employees'' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, praying for payment of the said amount to him. THE amount was, however, not paid to him According to the District Forum the appellant was obliged to pay the amount after transferring it to the new A/c. i.e., 4047/3344 and thus was guilty of deficiency in service. The District Forum, therefore, directed that the amount of Rs. 87,309/- be transferred to the complainant''s A/c. No. 4047/3344 and the same be paid along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 8.7.2002.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent prayed only for the transfer of his original A/c. No. MP/1249/1260 to A/c. No. 4047/3344. It was submitted that the action on the prayer as above has already been taken by the appellant and the amount of Rs. 87,309/- has been credited to the new A/c. No. 4047/3344 of complainant/respondent. It was, however, submitted that the appellant was not obliged to make the payment of the said amount to the complainant/respondent herein, unless the respondent submits a fresh application in prescribed Form No. 19.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the insistence of the appellant that the respondent should submit fresh application in Form No. 19 for seeking payment of his dues towards Employees'' Provident Fund was totally unjustified; in view of the fact that he has already applied for payment in the said Form No.19. As noticed above the complainant/respondent is undisputably entitled to get Rs. 87,309/- towards his Employees'' Provident Fund. It is also not in dispute that the said amount was to be transferred in his new A/c. No. 4047/3344. As stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant, in fact the said amount has already been transferred as above.

THEREFORE, the only question that arises for consideration is; as to whether the appellant''s insistence that the complainant/respondent should fill up fresh Form No.19 to obtain payment of his Employees'' Provident Fund is justified? It is not in dispute that the complainant/respondent had already filled up Form No.19 as above. The copy of the same was filed in the record of the District Forum. In view of above the amount should have been paid to him without any further delay, as the said Form No. 19 is meant for withdrawal of the Employees'' Provident Fund amount. This having been done by the complainant/respondent, there appears to be no justification whatsoever to insist that another Form should be filled by him, as is the contention of the learned Counsel of the appellant. Obviously, the Form of withdrawal of amount having been duly filled by the complainant/respondent, the appellant was obliged to pay the amount to him without delay. The appellant''s default in not doing so, certainly amounts to deficiency in service. Thus, there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned order directing the appellant to pay the amount of his Employees'' Provident Fund to complainant/respondent. Accordingly, this appeal has no substance and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. It is further directed that the appellant shall make payment of the balance amount in the account of the complainant/respondent with interest payable to him as per the rules till the date of complaint and interest as awarded by the District Forum from the date of the complaint. If the amount as above is not paid within 1 month from today, the appellant shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the amount payable to the respondent from the date of non-compliance of this order. The appellant shall also pay cost of this appeal to the respondent which is quantified as Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. two thousand only). Appeal dismissed.