SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is a complaint for realization of interest, compensation, costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The 2nd complainant was an employee of the Food Corporation of India and he retired from service on 31.10.2006. He was a subscriber of the Contributory Provident Fund with account No.53072. After retirement he applied for the PF accumulation and on 28.12.2006 a sum of Rs. 6,31,729/- was sanctioned lby the 2nd opp.party as the final Contributory Provident Fund payment. The first opp.party was bound to ensure prompt disbursement of the above sum. But the first opp.party withheld the payment for about 3 months after receiving the sanction order. The conduct of the first opp.party amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint. The opp.parties filed a joint version contending, interalia, that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. The relationship between the parties is employer-employee. As and when an application along with supporting documents were received by the CPF Trust through the office of the subscriber for final settlement which is the responsibility of the office of the subscriber to see that no amount is due from the employee which needs to be adjusted were the retirement benefit before the settlement of PF account. The opp.parties have never withheld any amount due to the complainant illegally. The complainant is not entitled to get any interest or compensation or costs as alleged. The complainant has suppressed material facts . The Food Corporation of India as per the Circular No.5/93 dated 18.2.93 and Circular No.13/1997 dated 9.9.07 stepped up the pay of the complainant and others on par with the pay of their junior. Thereafter the above circulars were withdrawn and there was a direction to recover the excess amount paid to such employee. During the pendency recovery proceedings the complainant and others approached the High Court challenging the proceedings and the OP was allowed . Against that order the opp.parties preferred writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was also dismissed. Thereafter the opp.parties have filed Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court which is pending The 2nd complainant had submitted an undertaking that the decision of the Supreme Court relating to stepping up of pay is agreeable for adjustment of any excess amount from the CP balance payment due. The case was not disposed by the court before his retirement So in the light of the above the first opp.party could not release the CPF final withdrawal amount to the complainant immediately for want of clarification on the undertaking furnished by the complainant. In order to arrange payment there was a series of correspondence before the first opp.party and the higher authorities, which is the reason for the delay in settlement of PF accumulation. There is no deficiency in service as alleged. The complaint is a frivolous and vexatious one with the intention to harass the opp.parties. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. The complainants are a consumer? 2.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 1. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P14 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence for the complainant. Points: The contention of the opp.parties is that the 2nd complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2[1][d] of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainants would argue that the 2nd complainant is a consumer as the FCI, Contributory Provident Fund subscriber are governed by the Provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952. It is further argued that those who are governed by General Provident Fund Act 1925 alone are excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainants would canvass the point that members under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 are consumers relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in III [1999] CPJ 36. So we hold that the 2nd complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2[1] [d] of Consumer Protection Act. Point found accordingly. Point 2 Admittedly the 2nd complainant retired from service on 31.10.06 and the final payment of CPF was sanctioned by opp.party 2 on 28.12.2006. The complainant would argue that the delay in according sanction is due to the delay on the part of opp.party 1 in forwarding his application to opp.party2. However there is no material, worth believable, to show that the delay in between 31.10.2006 and 28.12.2006. is on the part of opp.party1. It has come in evidence that the amount of Rs.6,31,729/- sanctioned on 28.12.2006 was disbursed to the complainant by opp.party 1 only on 4.4.07. According to the opp.parties the delay in releasing the CPF final payment occurred due to some litigations connected with the stepping up of pay of the complainant and subsequent withholding of the enhancement. But the opp.parties have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in this regard. It is argued by the learned council for the opp.parties that in pursuant to the application dated 10.1.2007 there arose a series of correspondence between the opp.party 1 and higher authorities and finally only because of regular persuasion made by opp.party 1 with the General Manager, FCI for the release of the CPF in full to the complainant the order for release has been issued. Herein also no oral or documentary evidence was adduced in this regard.. There is no material before us regarding the quantum of dues to be deducted in pursuant to granting and subsequent withdrawal of stepping up of pay. No circulars or order in this regard is forthcoming.. The complainants would argue that even if there was any deductible dues opp.party 1 has no authority to make deduction and opp.party 1 ought to have complied with the procedure prescribed in Ext.P13 and any representation received from the complainant ought to have been forwarded to opp.party 2 along with the final withdrawal application and this aspect remains unchallenged. It is further argued that the 2nd complainant was in urgent need of money and opp.party 1 could have released the amount excluding the amount alleged to have been involved in the SLP or release the amount after obtaining an undertaking. There is force in that contention When sanction was accorded for payment by opp.party2, 1st opp.party is bound to release the amount and the burden is on opp.party I to prove as to how and why the delay occurred and no explanation in this regard is forthcoming. From the evidence and materials before us we hold that opp.party 1 is liable for the delay in releasing the CPF amount to the complainant promptly. The 2nd complainant is claiming interest for the delay in final payment relying on the decision reported in I [1991] CPJ 1961. No decision contrary is produced by the opp.parties nor could we find one. Hence we hold that the complainant is entitled to get interest during the delayed period. The Non receipt of an expected sum at the time of marriage of his daughter will naturally cause mental agony to the 2nd complainant. For all that has been discussed above we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.party 1. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the 1st opp.party to pay interest to the complainant on the CPF amount of Rs.6,31,729 @ 6% per annum for the period from 29..12.06 to 3.4.07 and Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. . I n d e x List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Vasudevan.P.K. List of documents for the complainant P1. – Letter dt. 6.3.2007 P2. – Letter dated 14.3.07 P3. – Letter dated 21.3.07 P4. -Letter dt. 23.5.07 P5. – Letter dated 23.5.07 P6. – Letter dt. Dated 31.5.07 P7. – Letter dated 19.6.07 | 
