Back
2008(4) CPR 338 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member and B.K. Taimni, Member
Central Board of Trustees —Petitioner
versus
Shri R.C. Bhardwaj —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2649 of 2004 with Revision Petition No. 141 of 2005
Decided on 7.4.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Maneesha Agarwal, Advocate (For Central Board of Trustees)
For the Respondent: Mr. R.C. Bhardwaj, in person. (Complainant)
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g) and 21(b) —Complainant retired from service of OP 3—Case of complainant that his Provident Fund Account want amounting to Rs. 2,08,901.32 ps was not given to him despite repeated requests—Complaint—Allowed by District Forum—Appeal—Dismissed by State Commission—Revision Petitions that against —Whereas the Central Board of Trustees made their calculation based on amount claimed by complainant in his complaint i.e. Rs. 2,08,901.32 ps. complainant in his calculation sheet stated calculation from Rs. 2,20,475.23 ps. —Cumulative effect of this was that petitioner was asking further relief of Rs. 31,459 over and above amount already given by petitioner to complainant —No infirmity found in calculation made by petitioner, wherein due amount as also interest payable was as per rules and regulations—Calculation arrived at by complainant was erroneous for simple reason that his initial calculation was more than the amount claimed in the complaint—Hence held that claim of complainant had been fully justified—Direction however given to Central Board of Trustee to pay to complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000 for mental agony caused to him—Revision petitions disposed of. (Paras 9 to 12)
Result: Revision petition dismissed of.
B.K. Taimni, Member—These two revision petitions arise from a common order passed by the State Commission, dismissing the appeal filed by Central Board of Trustees (Petitioner in RP No.2649 of 2004).
2. Very briefly stated the facts leading to filing the complaint by the complainant R.C. Bhardwaj (Petitioner in RP No. 141 of 2005) were that the complainant had retired from the service of the third opposite party before the District Forum, namely, M/s. Remington Rand of India Ltd., on 12.2.1998, it was the case of the complainant before the District Forum that his Provident Fund A/c amounting to Rs.2,08,901.32ps was not given to him despite repeated requests both to the Trustee, Remington Rand Employees Provident Institution as also M/s. Remington Rand of India Limited. In the meantime, Remington Rand Employees Provident Institution was taken-over by the Central Provident Fund. Since the matter was not getting settled and he was not getting his dues, a complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the three opposite parties before the District Forum. The District Forum after hearing the parties at considerable length directed the opposite parties before the District Forum to pay a sum of Rs.2,08,901.32 or such other higher amount which might be due towards the provident fund to him along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 12.2.1998 till the date of payment, his monthly pension as might be worked out and the accumulated arrears of the monthly pension shall also carry interest @ 9% p.a. from 12.2.98, compensation of Rs.50,000 for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,000 towards litigation costs. These amounts was to be paid within 30 days of the date of this order failing which OP 1 shall pay interest @ 9% till the date of payment on two amounts ordered above. Aggrieved by this order, only the first opposite party, namely, Central Board of Trustees of the Central Provident Fund filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed with Cost of Rs.50,000. Aggrieved /dissatisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, both the parties have filed two separate revision petitions before us.
3. We heard the parties at length and perused the material on record.
Revision Petition No. 141 of 2005
4. This revision petition has been filed before us for awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000 as also award of interest at the same rate as prevailing and as payable under the Provident Fund Rules amended from time to time.
5. It is a matter of record that against the original order passed by the District Forum, no appeal had been filed by the petitioner complainant before the State Commission thus, clearly indicating that the complainant was satisfied with the relief granted by the District Forum. Since the State Commission’s order does not modify the order passed by the District Forum, in these circumstances, the complainant Shri R.C. Bhardwaj is estopped from filing revision petition before us, hence we see no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed.
Revision Petition No. 141 of 2005
6. On 9.12.2004, this Commission had passed the following order:
“Admit, Issue notice in revision petition and stay application returnable on 17th May, 2005.
Amount of Rs. 2,08,901.32 ps with interest @ 9% p.a. will be paid by the petitioner to the respondent on furnishing indemnity bond for refund of this amount in event of this revision petition being accepted. Subject to payment of this amount, the operation of orders passed by the Fora below shall remain suspended till next date. Dasti”.
7. Again on 17.5.2005 the following order was passed by this Commission:
“Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Board of Trustees states that if complainant furnishes requisite Forms namely Form 19 and 10D prescribed under EPF Scheme Fund Family Pension Scheme petitioner Board would pay the amount within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the said Forms along
