Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

          Ld. Advocate for the appellant is present.

          Ld. Advocate, Mr. Ram Jee Singh appears by filing power on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2.

          Authorised signatory Ms. Pragya Mahapatra appears on behalf of respondent no. 3.

          A letter has been received on behalf of respondent no. 4 dt. 17.08.2023 wherefrom it appears that respondent no. 4 has nothing to say in connection with the appeal.

          Heard the submission of appellant and respondent nos. 1,2  & 3,.

          As the respondent no. 4 is not willing to appear so the appeal do proceed ex parte against respondent no. 4.

          Perused the impugned order.

          It appears that in order no. 2 dt. 30.05.2023 in CC/186/2023 passed by Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata, Unit III that the Ld. Commission below dismissed the complaint being not maintainable.

          It appears from paragraph 2 and the remaining portion of the impugned order that “ To merge the said two pension into single pension so that the discrepancies arise shall be regularised by paying pension to your petitioner or alternative solution to give pension (Two pension) to your petitioner”.

          Complainant has claimed that the was an employee of opposite party No. 4 for 16 years and left the job on 30.11.2005. Thereafter, he joined OPs and rendered service for 12 years and retired on 31.07.2019. Two separate pension payment order being Nos. WB/CAL/00095452 and WB/CAL/119858 has been issued in favour of the complainant. However, according to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office Kolkata, excess amount of Rs. 39,771/- has been paid to the complainant through pension payment order No. WB/CAL/119858 and by letter on 11.08.2021 he has been asked to refund the same.

          On a careful scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that complainant has not been denying about excess payment. He is only claiming that there was no malafide intention on his part. If that be so then there cannot be any deficiency in service which is the pre-requisite element to bring a case within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. Any overdrawal or excess amount has to be paid back. Thus complaint being not maintainable, CC/186/2023 is dismissed being no admitted.”

          Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that although the respondent no. 1 directed the appellant to pay the excess amount of Rs. 39,771/- but the said amount was deposited by the appellant / complainant himself, but he was directed to refund the same.

          So, the Ld. Commission below came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service. But we are of the view that the complaint case should not have been rejected at the time of admission without giving opportunity to adduce evidence and without evidence adduced by the parties the matter cannot be adjudicate. So, we are of the view that this is the fit case for sending back the same on remand for fresh adjudication.

          Accordingly, A/244/2023 is allowed on contest against respondent nos. 1 to 3 and ex parte against respondent no. 4 without cost.

          The impugned order dt. 30.05.2023 passed by DCDRC, Kolkata Unit III is set aside.

          Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Commission below on 09.10.2023.

          Ld. Commission below shall dispose of the case after giving opportunity to both sides of being heard without being influenced by any observation made by this Commission within 3 months from the date of appearance of the parties.