The respondent who was an employee of Southern Road Carrier Ltd., New Delhi, had been contributing the employees provident fund under Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. After the respondent resigned his job, moved the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner seeking refund of contribution made by him to the provident fund, who credited the sum in question in Saving Bank Account of the respondent. For a long time there was no breakthrough in the matter and eventually when respondent made enquiries from the Provident Fund Commissioner, he was informed that his provident fund account was settled

-2-

on 7.7.1994 and he was accordingly advised to seek required permission from the Bank. When he took up the matter with the petitioner-Bank he was told that after the cheque for Rs.36,931/- was received from Provident Fund Commissioner on 11.7.1994, the instrument in question was sent for collection by the Bank on 14.7.1994 and after collection of the proceeds the sum in question was credited to his account on 25.7.1994. Thereafter the issue became debatable as the respondent found that the amount in question has not been credited to his account. As the respondent has lost his passbook which would have reflected the credit of the amount in question, he moved petitioner-Bank to furnish statement of account so that credit of the amount in question to his account could be testified. However as ledger of the Bank being eitht years old was destroyed by the Bank, the respondent was not supplied with the statement of account. Though the petitioner had also taken recourse to public authorities on a number of occasions for redressal of his grievance about non payment of provident fund dues, that failed to settle the dispute. After the door of Consumer Fora was knocked by the respondent, the District Forum finding no merit, dismissed the complaint. The aforesaid finding of the District Forum was however reversed by the State

-3-

Commission, which having taken notice of the issues involved in the matter while upholding the claim of the respondent directed the petitioner-Bank to pay Rs.36,931/- alongwith 6% interest from 2.3.2006. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony suffered by the respondent was also awarded by the State Commission. Even in the matter of destruction of record, the State Commission noticed that though records shown to be destroyed, the petitioner Bank have employed an agency, namely, M/s. Renuka Waste Paper Agency and has also violated the instructions. This goes without saying that the respondent though left no stone unturned to get his dues since 1994. Having gone through the finding of the State Commission, we find no fault warranting our interference in the impugned order and the revision petition, in the circumstances, is dismissed but without order as to costs.