1.      This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, R.Ravikumar Rao, against the order dated 20.12.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.A/11/156.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was an Officer with HSBC Bank and his services were terminated.  The amount of Employees Provident Fund contributed during his tenure as an Officer remained unclaimed intentionally to earn the sizeable rate of interest as notified from time to time.  However, the opponent has paid only 3.5% interest p.a. on the amount held in PF Trust.  Therefore, the consumer complaint was filed.

3.      The opposite parties resisted the complaint on the ground that the Employees Provident Fund Trust of the bank was empowered to decide the rate of interest and therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.  The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short ‘the District Forum’) after considering the submissions of both the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’.

4.      Aggrieved with the order dated 22.12.2010 of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal bearing No.A/11/156 before the State Commission, which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2016 of the State Commission.

5.      Hence the revision petition.

6.      Heard the petitioner in person at the admission stage and perused the record.

7.      The petitioner stated that he did not withdraw the amount of the PF even after his service was terminated with a view to get maximum interest so that his money may grow.  However, the opposite parties gave only interest @ 3.5%, which was even less than the interest rate prevailing in the market then.  The District Forum has wrongly decided that the complainant was not a consumer.  The State Commission has also dismissed appeal on the ground that Trust was authorised to fix the rate of interest. The fact of the matter is that the complainant/petitioner kept his fund with the Trust for a long time and the interest rate prevailing earlier should have been continued. Otherwise also, the petitioner is entitled to interest rate prevailing in the open market i.e. rate at least prevailing in the banks on the fixed deposit. The complainant requested for setting aside order of the fora below and to allow the revision petition.

8.      I have carefully considered the arguments of the petitioner, who is present in person and have examined the material on record.

9.      The State Commission has decided the appeal on merits and therefore, the order of the District Forum that the complainant is not a consumer does not have any effect so far as this revision petition is concerned. The main dispute is in respect of the interest rate and the State Commission has observed the following in this regard:-

“4.   Now touching upon the main issue of rate of interest as claimed by the complainant we are of the opinion that the Trustees of the Provident Fund are well within their rights to decide the rate of interest from time to time as provided in the relevant rules and regulations.  Although the complainant was discharged from the services of HSBC Bank it was open for him to withdraw the amount accumulated in his provident fund account within a period of two months.  However, the complainant was under impression that the amount can be continued to be kept in PF Deposit Account of the Opponent just to earn expected higher rate of interest instead of carrying the said amount to the new employer and new account.  Even to retain the amount, consent of the Trustees was necessary to continue such deposit for earning higher rate of interest as expected by the complainant.  We do not find any specific consent of the Opponent Trustees permitting the complainant to continue his PF deposits in the Trust.  Complainant tried to submit that there is deeming provisions as to consent of the Trustees when the deposit is not released and allowed to be continued.  We are not impressed with the submissions------.”

10.    From the above observations of the State Commission, it is clear that the complainant tried to take undue advantage of facility of the EPF by keeping his matured fund with the Trust under the impression that he will be getting the same rate of interest as he was getting earlier.  However, as per the Rules of the Trust, any person can keep  his fund unclaimed only for 2 months after it became due for payment.  Trust had decided to give only 3.5% interest, if the funds are not taken out even after period of two months. Perhaps this may be so because, the Trust would not like to take responsibility for managing the funds that ought to have been taken out by the employee.  Thus, it is clear that the Trust of the bank has given interest as per its Rules and there is no deficiency on the part of the Trust or the bank.  The State Commission has critically examined all the aspects and I do not find any shortcoming in the order dated 20.12.2016 of the State Commission.

11.    Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 20.12.2016 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Revision Petition No.134 of 2017 is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.