MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…              The case is that, the complainant had worked under the OP.1 from 01.07.2005 to dt.03.07.2006 and was allotted EPF A/c No.36317/37143 with EPFO, Pune @ Rs.232/- p.m. as employers contribution and Rs.240/- p.m. as employees contribution, and after resigning from the office of OP.1, the complainant submitted the EPF form no.19 & 10C (EPS) for attestation by OP.1 and onward submit to the EPFO, Pune for withdrawal of EPF accumulations. But as no amount received as thus, he applied under RTI for the status of the EPF account but the OP.1 did not reply. Again towards his settlement of arrear salary, the OP.1 had issued one cheque of ICICI Bank Pune from account No. ANWB-624005011304 for an amount of Rs.9875/- vide cheque no.622349 dt.10.10.2005, but as the cheque received on termination of validity, the same could not be realized. Hence the complainant returned back the cheque in original to the OP.1, with prayer for issuance of fresh cheque, but in vain. The OP.1 neither issued a fresh cheque nor replied to that aspect. Hence aggrieved, the complainant has prayed this forum, to allow the complaint with direction to OP.1 to pay the amount of cheque, and information’s about form 19 & 10C he submitted, including a compensation of Rs.20,000/- & Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost. The complainant has submitted us certain documents in support of his claim.

2.         The OP.3 & 4 filed joint application under order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, contending that, as the complainant worked under OP.1, a Pune based company and also his disputes related to EPFO, Pune, the OP.3 & 4 has no role to play in redressal of the grievance of the complainant, hence the complaint against them shall be dropped. Considered.

3.         The OP.1 & 2 did not file their counter against the complaint. Hence set ex parte and complainant is heard in their absence and decided on merit.

4.         Coming to the contention of OP.3 & 4 the consumer forum established under the C.P.Act 1986, follows simple procedure, only certain provisions of CPC, CrPC & IPC, that are specified therein and not all the provisions like order 1, rule 10 of CPC, the adjudications is summery procedure, and complaints are decided on merit with consideration to the natural justice, without the detail enumeration of laws. Hence the petition losses it’s merit, as thus dismissed.

5.         However, the complaint against the OP.3 & 4, fails for they are no way related to his grievance, hence complaint against OP.3 & 4 is discarded from adjudication.

            Pronounced in the open forum on 30th Dec’2016.

                       Sd/-                              Sd/-                                         Sd/-

                MEMBER                     MEMBER                       PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                                  NABARANGPUR.