REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. SYED MONIDDIN HASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party in COP No.24/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: He was working as Assistant Manager in N.T.T.F. He was in service for about 18 years. Both he and his employer had been regularly contributing to the Provident Fund. During May 1996 he applied for sanction of an advance for purchase of a site under paragraph 6B of the Provident Fund Act and Tamil Nadu Rules. The opposite party received the application in May 1996, but till the date of filing of the complaint he had not processed it. The complainant was a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The non -sanctioning of the amount, though might be at the discretion of the opposite party, the complainant was entitled to know as to why he had not been sanctioned the advance. The complainant claimed Rs. 50,000 towards damages and Rs. 1,000 as costs.

(2.) THE opposite party resisted the complaint. The loan applied for could be sanctioned only if the original title deeds of the property and approved layout of the plot which the complainant intended to purchase were provided. The complainant did not enclose those documents. The papers were returned to the complainant on 13.2.1997 for compliance of the statutory requirements. The application could be considered only on compliance of the returns. The complainant was not a consumer. The maintenance of provident fund accounts, sanction of withdrawal of amounts are not items falling under the definition of "service".

(3.) BEFORE the District Forum, on the side of the complainant Exs. A -l to A5 were marked, while on the side of the opposite party no documents were marked.