ORDER

1.      This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, Punjab dated 03.09.2013 in First Appeal No.926 of 2009, whereby the State Commission partly accepted the appeal preferred by the Respondents/Opposite parties against the order of the District Forum and reduced the interest payable on the delayed payment of the provident fund to the deceased-complainant.

2.     The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only one grievance against the impugned order inasmuch as regarding the deduction of a sum of Rs.1,280/- as service charge by the concerned State Bank of India while making the payment against the bank draft of Rs.6,40,000/- issued by the opposite parties in respect of the provident fund payable to the deceased-complainant.

3.     On perusal of the record, we find that both the Fora below have returned concurrent findings that the opposite party had issued a bank draft of right amount payable to the deceased-complainant and if at all while making the payment against the bank draft, the bank has deducted the collection charges, then opposite parties cannot be held deficient in service. The relevant observations of the State Commission are in Para 10 of the impugned order, which is reproduced as under;

“10.  It is the case of the complainant pleaded in the complaint itself that when the initial payment was made of the CPF by means of the brank draft, a sum of Rs.1,280/- was deducted by the bank as bank charges. Therefore, the grievance regarding that amount is against the bank itself and the complainant for the refund of that amount was not maintainable against the opposite parties.”

4.     We do not find any fault that the approach adopted by the State Commission which may call for interference of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

5.     No other argument has been advanced against the impugned order. Therefore, in view of the discussions above, we do not find any merits in the revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed.