ORAL ORDER

(PER:HON'BLEMT.JUSTICET.G.SHMSHANKAREGOWDA'PRESIDENT)

This Appeal is filed U/S 4l of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short CP Act) by the appellant challenging the order dated 09.02'2024 passed in CC1TTlz}Lg on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolar (in short the District Commission)'

The Appellant was Opposite Party No'1 (in short OP1), Respondent No.1 was complainant and Respondent Nos'2 and 3 were Opposite Party Nos'2 and 3 (in short OP Nos.2 and 3) before the District Commission. Rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission'

The Brief facts of the case are thaU complainant has worked as a permanent employee from 01.05.1973 in PLD Bank, Shidlaghatta and thereafter he has served in Chikkaballapura, Gouribidanur and ultimately he was transferred to OP1 in the year 1997. Complainant in all served 36 years of service and on completion of 58 years he is entitle to addition of two years weightage for the pension . On 29.02.2012, the complainant was retired from the service on attaining the age of 60 years. On 29.02.20L2, the complainant made a requisition to the OPs to pay his Provident Fund (in short the PF). Inspite of his request it was not considered. Subsequent to the retirement one year thereafter OP1 has paid Rs.6,40 ,932/- without sending amount to the PF account. Because of this the complainant has suffered the monetary loss and hence pleading deficiency of service, he has filed complaint before the District Commission.

OP1 has opposed the complaint by filing counter to the complaint contending that the complainant is not a consumer' complaint is not maintainable and they have not provided any service to the complainant. As per the calculation, the complainant is entitled to Rs.6,40,932/- and the same was paid to the comPlainant. He has accepted the same without any objection. Hence the complaint is not maintainable against them.

OP2 in his version admitted that , the complaint.complainant had worked at Shidlaghatta, Gouribidanur Chikkaballapura and ultimately he was transferred to OP1 and retired on 29.O2.20t2. Post retirement a sum of Rs.6,40,932/- was paid to the complainant. There is no miscalculation of PF and complaint is not maintainable against them and sought for dismissal of

OP3 had filed version contended that complainant has not furnished his EPF/EPS account number or the code number of the establishments allotted under the EPF and MP Act, 1952' In the absence of the account they are unable to furnish the specific reply to the comments made in the complaint' The employees of the establishment become the member of the PF scheme w.e.f. the date of application of the act on the establishment i'€', Employees Provident Fund Scheme, t952, Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, L976, Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Since the comPlainant is not member of any of these schemes there is no question of paying any PF or its benefits. There is no relationship between complainant and them. There is no deficiency of service and they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

Before the District Commission, on behalf of both the parties affidavit evidence is filed and they have also produced the documents' At the first round of litigation, the complaint came to be dismissed. Against the said order an Appeal was filed before this Commission in All522l2OL9. The said appeal came to be allowed on 07.08.2023 remanding the matter to the District Commission. Post remand the District Commission taking into consideration the evidence produced by both the parties allowed the complaint against OP3 and dismissed the complaint against OP Nos.1 and 2 and further directed the OP3 to add two years of weightage by considering 36 years of service by the complainant and to settle the PF amount with interest @ 7.5o/o p.a. w.e.f., 01.03'2010 and also imposed cost of Rs.3,000/-. Aggrieved by the same'OP3 have filed the Present aPPeal.

We have heard learned