Yogiram @ Jograj son of Sali Ram resident of village Domeli, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala.<br /> Complainant.<br /> Versus <br /> 1. The chief Employs Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhiwish Nidhi Bhawan, 14, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi-110066.<br /> 2. The Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner, Sahota Commercial Complex,, 171, Green Park, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar.<br /> Opposite parties.<br /> Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Quoram : Sh.A.K. Sharma President.<br /> Sh.Surinder Mittal, Member.<br /> Present : : Sh.K.S. Bawa counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh.Janak Raj Kapil Enforcement officer on <br /> behalf of opposite parties.<br /> JUDGMENT (SH.A.K. SHARMA PRESIDENT.)<br /> Instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Yogiram @ Jograj against the chief Employs Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhiwish Nidhi Bhawan, 14, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi-110066. and the Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner, Sahota Commercial Complex,, 171, Green Park, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar seeking direction against them for payment of cheque amount of Rs.4039/- and also monetary compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. Brief facts in the complaint are that complainant was employed with GNA Duraparts, G.T. Road, Goraya, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar at their factory at village Mehatiana, District Hoshiarpur and was having his PF A/c No.2892/1475-jogi Ram with the opposite parties. He resigned from the service and applied for for refund of his Provident Fund amount and other dues. He was sent two cheques for Rs.15174/- and Rs.4039/- by opposite party No.2 under his signatures on Kapurthala Co-operative Bank branch Jatan Rehana, Tehsil Phagwara favouring complainant but the same was returned to opposite party No.2 as the cheques were sent in the name of Jog Raj instead of Jogi Ram. It is further alleged that opposite party did not issue the cheques again after receiving returned cheques. He again applied for the same. Opposite party No.2 sent cheque for Rs.15174/- but the opposite party did not sent cheque amount of Rs.4039/-despite his serving legal notice dated 24/1/2006 on opposite parties under section 80 C. P.C. demanding cheque for Rs.4039/- with interest due favouring complainant on Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Mehatiana, District Hoshiarpur but the same was not complied with by the opposite party No.2 . Therefore, complainant has claimed above reliefs.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared and controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim .The employment of the complainant with M/s GNA duraparts, G.T. Road, Goraya Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar since 1/9/97 and resigning service on 18/4/2001 and his PF Account No. is PN/2892/1479 is not disputed. This fact is also admitted that complainant filed his claim in Form 19 and 10C to claim PF and other benefits in the name of <br /> Jogi Ram and the same was received in its office on 6/6/2004 in the name of Jogi Ram and was settled on 22/7/04 and cheque No.393677 dated 30/7/04 for amount of Rs.15174/- and another cheque No.548650 dated 30/7/2004 for Rs.4039/- was issued in favour of Jogi Ram and sent to his bank for crediting of the same in the account of Sh.Jogi Ram vide office letter dated 10/8/04. This fact is also admitted that cheques were sent in the name of Jogi Ram whereas his bank account number was mentioned in the name of Jog Raj. The claim was settled by the office for Rs. 16248/- with interest upto January 2005 and cheque No. 404473 dated 28/2/2005 for the same amount sent to the banker of the complainant to credit the same in his account. Claim in Form - 10C received on 17/8/06 was settled by the office for Rs.4038/- vide cheque No.853347 dated 31/8/06 which has been credited to the same bank of the same account as mentioned by the member in the claim form i.e. 5042 of Punjab & Sind Bank, Mehatiana on 23/9/06. It is, therefore, stated that it was only on receipt of the claim from the complainant that EPF and Pension dues as admissible under the provision of the Act were released by the office. and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as the claim was settled within one month from the date of receipt of Form 19 and 10-C<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, notice ex.C2 and postal receipts Ex.C3 to C5.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence documents Ex.R1 to R5.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and representative of opposite parties. These facts are not disputed that cheque amount of Rs.15174/- vide cheque No. 393677 dated 30/7/04 has since been credited into the Account of the complainant and later on cheque No. 548650 dated 30/7/2004 for Rs.4039/- was also credited though at the belated time i.e. on 31/8/06. No doubt, earlier there was mistaken identity of name of the complainant being Jog Raj under whose name bank account was being operated with Kapurthala Co-operative Bank branch Jatan Rehana as it is clear from the letter dated 13/8/04 in response to the letter of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated 10/8/04 for settlement of Provident Fund claims to the Manager, Kapurthala Central Co-operative bank branch Rehana Jattan. It is further clear from the application dated 9/9/04 of the complainant Ex.R4 that cheque amount be issued in the name of Jogi Ram to Punjab & Sindh Bank Mehtiana branch, Mehtiana District Hoshiarpur for crediting the same in the Account No.5042/13 - Jogi Ram. The plea of the opposite parties is that cheque amount of Rs,.16248/- has since been credited in the Account of Jogi Ram on 17/3/2005 against Account No.5042 mentioned at Punjab & Sindh Bank, VPO Mehtiana District Hoshiarpur but the claim in Form 10 C was received on 17/8/06 and was settled by their office for Rs.4038/- vide cheque No. 853347 dated 31/8/06 which has been credited to the same bank of the same account as mentioned by the member in the claim form i.e. 5042 of Punjab & Sind Bank, Mehatiana on 23/9/06 Neither opposite parties have produced any Form 10 C allegedly received on 17/8/06 so as to exonerate it from its liability to pay interest on the said amount of Rs.4038/- from Sept.2004 when the complainant had written for transferring the said cheque amount of Rs.4038/- in his account to Punjab & Sindh Bank, Mehtiana branch. Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn that the opposite parties showed apathy and laxity in service for not depositing the cheque amount of Rs.4038/- in Sept.2004 and thus deprived the complainant from interest on the said amount till August 2006. To that extent we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.4038/- from Sept.2004 till August 2006 alongwith monetary compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment due to deficiency in service and costs of litigation to the extent of Rs.1000/- which would be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 15.4.2008 Member President.