The court established that delayed payment of provident fund dues constitutes a deficiency in service, and the appellant was entitled to interest @ 18% per annum for the delayed payment, as per the legal precedent set in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi.

Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member—This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) dated 2.11.2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 16 of 2000, Ramesh Chander Kapoor v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.

2. The complaint in nutshell is that the complainant was an employee of M/s. Unichem Labs Limited (O.P. No. 3). He was District Manager of the Company with his Headquarter at Chandigarh. He was a member of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 and his EPF Account No. was MH/1064/1350 and he paid monthly contribution to the said fund through O.P. No. 3 - M/s. Unichem Labs Limited. The balance in his account towards the close of Financial Year 94-95 was shown as Rs. 2,22,055/-. The grievance of the appellant/complainant is that no further details of this account were furnished to him. The complainant resigned from service on 4.4.1997 after putting in approximately 27 years of service. After resigning the job, he submitted all papers/forms duly filled for withdrawal EPF amount and Employees Pension Scheme 1995 to O.P. No. 3 who, however, forwarded the same to O.P. No. 1 only on 10.9.1997. These were duly received by O.P. No. 1 on 12.9.1997 and receipt for the same is annexed with the complaint as C-1. The complainant avers that inspite of his written requests to expedite payment of his EPF amount he received no intimation from O.P. No. 1 till 7.3.1998 when he visited the Bank i.e. Bank of India where he was told that a cheque No. 359524 dated 5.1.1998 for amount of Rs. 3,26,163/- has been received from O.P. No. 1 on 4.2.1998. The complainant again received another cheque for Rs. 3,020/- dated 23.7.2000 on account of interest for the month of December, 1997. The complainant’s grouse is that the O.Ps. unduly delayed the payment of EPF dues which caused him mental tension and harassment. He has, therefore, claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment. He has also craved for interest @ 18% per annum from April, 1997 till date of actual payment of cheque given by O.P. No. 1 and further interest @ 18% per annum on the amount so assessed till the date of its actual payment.

3. The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 accepted that the forms were received by O.P. No. 1 on 12.9.1997. The O.P. settled the claim by giving interest up to November, 1997 and released the full entitlement of Rs. 3,26,163/- vide cheque No. 359524 dated 5.1.1998. However, there was a delay in dispatch of the cheque due to an administrative difficulty and, therefore, to off-set the same another cheque for Rs. 3,020/- as interest amount for December, 1997 was also given to the complainant. The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, contended that there has been no deficiency in service on their part.

4. The District Forum held that since the complainant did not mention any date of his submission of papers to O.P. No. 3 and O.P. No. 3 forwarded the papers to O.P. No. 1 on 10.9.1997, there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No. 3. It also held that O.P. No. 1 had processed the case and had given the complainant his entire dues including interest up to December, 1997 and hence there was no deficiency on their part too. Regarding payment of interest @ 18% the District Forum held that in view of the changed financial scenario wherein both rates of Bank interest and interest rates on various Provident Fund Schemes are continuously dropping, payment of interest @ 12% was quite justified. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum vide the impugned order.

5. The appellant sought relief mainly against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and not against respondent No. 3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear before us to contest this appeal. However, Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3 but he did not submit any arguments on the ground that the appellant had not sought any relief against respondent No. 3.

6. A perusal of the rec