IMPORTANT POINT
Right to Get Redressal - Respondent No.1/Complainant has a right to get redressal in this Commission for deficiency on the party of the Petitioners, who had denied him the pensionary benefit for certain period and therefore, are liable to pay the interest on the amount which the Petitioner had paid belatedly on the Order of the Regional Fund Commissioner.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been filed by Petitioners against the Order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in First Appeal No.104/2012, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioners was dismissed and the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) was maintained.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the Complaint are that the Respondent No.1/Complainant was an employee, as on 01.03.1974, in Rajasthan State Industrial & Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (RIMDC) and was transferred in January, 1976 to another project. The Contributory Provident Fund was not deducted by the Corporation on the ground that these mines are not included in the schedule under Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952. In an Order of the Government of India, dated 14.01.1977, it was clarified that all mining units fall under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952. In 1979, the Complainant was assigned to Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (RSMDCL). By an Order from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, dated 31.10.1976, all officers/employees were to be included for Provident Fund deduction w.e.f. 01.04.1971. The Complainant has submitted that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Udaipur had determined his eligibility for Provident Fund Membership w.e.f. 01.11.1974, vide its Order dated 28.05.2003. An amount of Rs.3,350.50 was paid to the Complainant by RSMDCL on 28.05.2003 by giving the interest on the contribution w.e.f. 01.07.1997, whereas the interest amount should actually be given w.e.f. 1st November, 1974. The Complainant has demanded that alongwith interest from 01.07.1997 upto July, 2006,

an amount of Rs.40,494.50 towards interest from 01.11.1974 to 30.06.1997 from the Petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed Complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the Complaint against the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 and 5 and directed to pay Rs. 40,494.50 to the Complainant with interest @ 9 % from 01.08.2006 till the date of payment.

4. The relevant portion of the Order of the District Forum in CC No.154/2006, dated 16.02.2012 is reproduced herein:—

“22. Consequently, while deciding the case unanimously, Complaint of the Complainant is allowed against the Respondents No. 4 and 5 and it is ordered that Respondents No. 4 and 5 are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 40,494.50 (Rupees forty thousand four hundred and ninety four and fifty paise only) to the Complainant and interest at the rate of 9 percent thereon from 01.08.2006 till the date of payment within three months. In case payment is not made within three months, interest @ 18% p.a. shall be payable on the total above amount and interest on it. Respondents are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as cost of proceedings to the Complainant in three months otherwise interest at the rate of 18 percent on the above amount shall be payable after it on the above amount.”

5. Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Opposite Parties Nos.4 and 5 appealed before the State Commission.

6. The State Commission, vide its Order dated 11.07.2016, dismissed the Appeal and maintained the Order passed by the District Forum.

7. The relevant portion of the Order of the State Commission in First Appeal No.104/2012, dated 11.07.2016, is reproduced herein:—

“12. Now coming to the main question whether the complainant is entitled to receive any interest from the date the scheme was made applicable to him. This is not in dispute that scheme was made applicable to him from 01.11.1974 and opposite party nos. 4 and 5 have paid to him the contribution of that period but interest on that amount was paid from 01.07.1997, the opposite party has not assigned any valid reason for refusing to pay interest