BHOJ DUTT MALHOTRA Vs. KAMLESH VOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the Counsel for the appellant (there is no appearance for the respondent) we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the appellant's contention that the complaint petition filed before the State Commission did not raise a consumer dispute as defined in the Act. The controversy raised in the complaint concerns a dispute between rival claimants as to the entidement for receiving the provident fund amounts payable to a deceased person. The adjudication of such rival claims put forward by persons contending that they are eligible persons in regard to the title to receive the provident fund amount of the deceased subscriber, is not a matter falling within the jurisdiction and purview of the forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act inasmuch as such a dispute in question is not a consumer dispute. In the circumstances the impugned order of the State Commission granting relief to the complainant declaring her to be rightful claimant for receiving the provident fund amount from the Provident Fund Commissioner cannot be legally sustained. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the complaint petition is dismissed leaving the parties at liberty to agitate their rights, if any, before a competent Civil Court. The parties will bear their respective costs. Appeal allowed.