BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.                                                              

                                                          Complaint No.: 22 of 2017.

                                                          Date of Institution: 02.02.2017.

                                                          Date of Order: 09.07.2019.

Nisha Malik wife of Shri Veerbhan Malik, Advocate, resident of 128 Patel Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

Assistant P. F. Commissioner, Ganga Palace Complex, Subhash Road, Plot No. 1, Sector-3, Rohtak, District Rohtak.

…...Opposite Party.

                             Complaint under Section 12 of the

 Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.

Present:       Shri Veer Bhan Malik, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the OP.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that she serviced as Hindi teacher in Smt. Utmi Bai Arya Girl Senior Secondary School, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani w.e.f. 19.7.1995 to 19.8.2005 and now serving in K. M. Public School, Bhiwani as Hindi teacher.  It is alleged that the PF of earlier school i.e. Utmi Bai Arya, Senior Secondary School is lying deposited in PF account No.2763/26 with the OP department and the complainant want to get transfer the same in her new PF account No. 8834/110 of K. M. Public School and for this the complainant has sent several written requests to OP, but to no effect.  It is further alleged that the OP department has sent a letter mentioning therein that on dated 12.1.2004 full payment of PF account No. 5772 has been made.  It is further alleged that the complainant has supplied all the documents as and when demanded by OP, but OP department failed in transferring the amount of previous PF account of the complainant in her present PF account.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, OP appeared and filed the contested written statement denying all the allegations of the complainant.  It is alleged that the PF account No. 2763/26 in the name of the complainant has already been transferred to Account No. 8834/110 for Rs.76,810/- and Rs.17,905/- on 3.11.2016.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C10 in evidence and close the evidence. 

4.                On the other hand, the OP has placed on record documents Annexure R1, Ex. R2, Ex. R3, affidavit Ex.RW1/A & closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on the record the copy of application Annexure C3, copy of letter sent by OP as Annexure C4, copy of letter Annexure C5, copy of letter Annexure C6, copy of detail of PF Annexure C7, copy of letter Annexure C8 etc. and also her duly sworn affidavit Annexure C10.  OP in its written statement admitted that the PF account No. 2763/26 of complainant has already been transferred to her new PF Account No. 8834/110 for Rs.76,810/- and Rs.17,905/- on 3.11.2016.  From the bare perusal of the documents placed on the file, it is clear that the complainant approached the OP for transfer of her PF account for the first time in the year 2004 and the OP department has transferred the same on 3.11.2016, which itself shows the negligency and deficiency on the part of the OP department.  Therefore, the case of the complainant stands fully proved.  Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs and the OP is directed: -

i.        To pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and hardship as well as litigation charges.

The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 09.07.2019.       

(Saroj Bala Bohra)                    (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                         Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                     Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.