Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant joined with OP No.1-Bank on 10.07.1968 and he got superannuation on 28.02.2007. He has also rendered 39 years of service. After retirement the OP found that pensionary benefit has not been extended to him although the provident fund has been deducted from his salary. He alleged that due to negligence of the Op he is deprived of getting the pensionary benefit. Showing deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he filed the present complaint.
4. The OP No.1 filed the written version stating that the case is not maintainable but admitted fact that the complainant was appointed at Malkangiri CARD Bank on 26.12.1968. Thereafter, the amount was deducted from his salary as usual procedure being followed for the Govt. Officers. It appears from the complaint petition that he has asked reset for sometime under the OP No.1 and after that he asked for same under OP No.2. OP No.1 further submitted that for the period from 26.09.2000 to 21.08.2001 the complainant has already received Rs.9908/-. Now the complainant claims the pension from 16.01.1999 to 26.09.2000. Inspite of meeting the officer of the Bank the complainant could not get the benefit of P.F. Scheme. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPNo.1.
.5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ The O.Ps 3 and 4 are instructed to pay the EPF benefit alongwith other pensionary benefit if any after depositing the required EPF amount by OPs 1 and 2 with special interest with any required intimation or information to the complainant. Further, the OPs 1 and 2 being found deficient in their respective services are hereby directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards harassment, mental agony including the cost of this case to be paid jointly and severally on 50 % ratio which should be paid within the said stipulated period of one failing which 9 % interest shall be chargeable over this part of the order till realization. Close the case accordingly on part merit of the complainant.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has passed the impugned order by directing OP No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.5000/- towards harassment and further directed OP No.3 & 4 to pay EPF amount alongwith other pensionary benefit. But learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that OP No.2 is independent and distinct persey and he has no relationship with OP No.1. Learned counsel for OP No.3 & 4 submitted that they have no liability at all as the entire allegation is against OP No.2. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that OP No.1 has deposited EPF dues Rs.9908/- as accrued on till 2001 and there is no deficiency in service with OP No.1 When the OP No.1 has done his duty and OP No.3 & 4 also agreed with it, impugned order against OP No.1,3 & 4 is set-aside. OP No.2 has not come in appeal for which impugned order against him to exist. So, the order of the learned District Forum should be set-aside against OP No.1,3 & 4.
Appeal is allowed so far liability as stated above is concerned.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Statutory amount be refunded.
