IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Revisional jurisdiction - where two interpretation of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.
(2) National Commission - National Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts.
(3) Perverse - Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra—This revision petition under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails order dated 25.04.2012 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘State Commission’) dismissing Appeal No.2204 of 2011.

2. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 16.01.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai (in short, ‘District Forum’) in consumer complaint no. 271 of 2004 filed by the respondent claiming provident fund benefit in a compensation awarded by the High Court of Mumbai.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Dattaram Payyar, the husband of the respondent no 1, was dismissed from service by the petitioner on 09.03.1992 on grounds of misconduct. The dismissal was challenged before the Industrial/Labour Court in April 1992. During the pendency of the case Dattaram Payyar died on 18.08.1995. The case was decided on 14.05.1998 upholding the dismissal. However, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded on humanitarian grounds at the consent of the petitioner. Before the District Forum, respondent no. 1 claimed deficiency in service against the Provident Fund Commissioner on the ground that the provident fund on the compensation had not been paid with interest. This claim was disallowed by the District Forum. The order was appealed against in the State Commission. The State Commission dis-allowed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum. This order has been impugned before us in this review petition.

4. The legal representatives of the deceased applied for the release of his Provident Fund (PF) Account No.MH/6570/616 which was settled on 21.02.2000 and Rs.36,064/- was paid. Against the order of the Labour Court, writ petition (WP) No.139/1999 was filed by the workers’ association. The WP was decided by way of a settlement which enhanced the compensation to Rs.90,000/-.

5. We have heard the submissions of both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records carefully.

6. The petitioner has contended that a consumer complaint is not maintainable against an employer who fails to make the statutory provident fund contribution, though it may lie against the provident fund department. It is also argued that as compensation does not form part of basic wages, it does not attract the requirements of PF contribution. Accordingly it is claimed by the petitioner that there is no liability placed on him by virtue of the order in WP 139/1999.

7. It is contended by the respondent no.1 that since the amount awarded was directed to be spread over from the date of dismissal up to the date of award, the respondent is eligible for provident fund which has not been ordered by the respondent no.2 and therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent no 2. Reliance is placed on Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Shiv Kumar Joshi CA no.411 of 1997 decided on 14.12.1999 in support of the argument that the respondent is a ‘consumer’ under the Act and to seek relief on ground of deficiency in service.

8. The order of the District Forum is as below:—

(i) Complaint application is partly allowed;

(ii) The opponent no.2 shall calculate amount as per Employees’ Provident Fund Rules payable for the period of 09.03.1992 to 18.08.1995 to late Dattaram Kany Payyar husband of the complainant by charging interest @ 12% per annum on it shall deposit total amount payable (basic amount + interest) within one month to the opponent no.1 from the date of receipt of order;

(iii) As mentioned above on deposit of the said amount by opponent no.1 he shall make payment to complainant together with interest within one month;

(iv) The opponent no.2 shall after calculating amount payable under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 in order to give benefit to complainant amount payable as per the salary of Late Dattaram Kanu Payyar and shall sent amount of family pension w