Petitioner was opposite party before the District Forum. Respondent’s husband joined Bareilly Corporation Bank on 4.5.1954. He retired on 30.9.1992. Petitioner took over Bareilly Bank on 12.6.1999. EPF amount was paid to the respondent’s husband on 12.2.2004. Respondent’s husband died on 23.6.2004. Respondent filed the complaint seeking interest on the delayed payment of EPF dues. Stand taken by the petitioner was that the respondent’s husband never applied for disbursal of the amount which was not paid; that respondent’s husband had filed Writ Petition challenging his retirement on 30.9.1992 as, according to him, he had not attained the age of superannuation; that his date of birth had been wrongly mentioned in bank records; that after disposal of the Writ Petition, EPF dues were paid to the respondent’s husband without any delay. According to the petitioner, it was not liable to pay interest as the respondent’s husband never completed the formalities for disbursal of the amount. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 9% on the EPF amount of Rs.2,59,305/- with effect from 1.1.1993 till the date of payment, i.e., 8.3.2004. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed with costs which have been assessed at Rs.5,000/-. Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute raised by the respondents is not a consumer dispute and a complaint seeking interest on the EPF amount is not maintainable. We do not find any substance in this submission in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi – (2000)1 SCC 98 wherein it has been held that the dispute relating to the EPF was a consumer dispute and could be adjudicated by the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act. Further contention of the counsel for the petitioner that since the husband of the respondent did not complete the formalities for disbursal of the EPF amount, petitioner was not liable to pay interest on the amount which had become due. We do not find any substance in this submission as well. It is true that till the completion of formalities, petitioner was not obliged to pay the amount towards provident fund but on completion of formalities, petitioner became liable to pay interest from the day it became due till actual disbursement. During all this period, the amount remained with the petitioner, which was utilized by it. Respondent was deprived of the use of that money. Supreme Court in Alok Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India & Ors. – (2007)3 SCC 545 has held that interest is neither a penalty nor punishment but is a normal accretion on capital; that the person who kept the money, utilized the same and earned interest thereon (which otherwise would have been earned by the person who was entitled to that amount), equity demands that the person who kept the money should pay the principal amount to the person to whom it is due with interest. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court read as under : “It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.” By the impugned order, fora below have directed the petitioner to pay the interest on the EPF amount from the day it became due till its payment. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the fora below. Dismissed. | 
