PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. BALAJI KERBA YENAKFALE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.5.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Latur directing respondent No. 2/org. opponent No. 1 Gramin Bank to pay to the complainant compensation Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 5,000 more compensation towards mental agony and Rs. 1000 towards cost of the complaint and further directing the appellant No. 1 Provident Fund Commissioner Aurangabad/org. opponent No. 2 to pay to the complainant compensation Rs. 3,000 for mental harassment and Rs. 1,000 cost of the complaint. (For the sake of brevity the appellants are hereinafter referred as the "opponent Nos. 2 and 3" and respondent No. 2 as "opponent No. 1 Bank" and respondent No. 1 Shri. Balaji Kerba Yenakphale as the "complainant".) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, complainant Shri. Balaji was in service of Agrawal Iron and Steel, Latur and in the year 1993 he voluntarily retired from his service. On retirement he has not received the amount of GPF. However in the year 2005 when he was in need of money he gave an application to opponent No. 3 Commissioner of Provident Fund, Solapur claiming his amount of GPF. On receipt of his application the office of the opponent No. 3 informed the complainant that in the year 1999 itself his amount of GPF Rs. 33,404 is transferred to his bank account which is with opponent No. 1 Marathwada Gramin Bank Branch Khadgaon District Latur. Therefore the complainant approached to opponent No. 1 Gramin Bank. But despite repeated follow up he could not get the amount. However in the year 2009 he came to know that on 7.3.2009 his amount with interest is transferred to the office of opponent No. 2 Commissioner P.F. Aurangabad by the opponent No. 1 Gramin Bank Branch, Khadgaon, District Latur. Thereafter in the month of November 2009 he received the amount with interest total Rs. 50,185 from the office of opponent No. 3. It is alleged by the complainant that since he could not get his amount of GPF for 11 years and 11 months, he sustained loss. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent Nos. 1 to 3 he has filed consumer complaint claiming compensation Rs. 1,51,988 towards loss and further compensation Rs. 25,000 towards physical and mental agony and Rs. 5000 more towards cost of the proceeding.

(2.) THE opponent No. 1 Gramin Bank by its written version resisted the complaint contending inter alia that on 19.11.1998 amount of GPF was received from the office opponent No. 2 and it was credited in the account of the complainant. However, as the surname of the complainant was not matching in the year 2009 by DD dated 7.3.2009 it returned the same amount to the office of the opponent No. 2 with interest. Thus according to the opponent No. 1 Bank it has not committed deficiency in service. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint.

(3.) ON hearing both side and considering the evidence on record the District Consumer Forum has held that the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 have committed deficiency in service withholding the amount of GPF of complainant for more than 11 years and therefore they are liable for payment of compensation, etc. In keeping with these findings the District Consumer Forum allowed the complainant's claim as noted above.