REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER BARODA Vs. ANITA MAHENDRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against order dated 26.2.2003 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.2167/2000, entitled Mrs. Anita Mahendru V/s. Shri V. K. Puri and Ors.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent Mrs. Anita Mahendru had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that from 29.3.1993 to 9.6.1999 she was employed with Shri V. K. Puri, General Manager, Aircommand India Limited. It was stated that she resigned her job on 9.6.1999. It was stated that during her employment with said V. K. Puri, the respondent Mrs. Anita Mahendru was contributing to the provident fund being maintained by the appellant. After resigning from the employment of said Shri V. K. Puri, respondent Mrs. Anita Mahendru requested the appellant for the refund of the provident fund amount. It was stated that the respondent received a refund of Rs.28,579/- on account of the amount of provident fund payable to her and another sum of Rs.4,257/- on account of Family Pension from the appellant. However, as per the calculations of the respondent/complainant her amount of PF dues, payable to her was to the tune of Rs.60,000/- approximately. It was stated that the respondent request a the appellant and her employer to pay the remaining amount of provident fund dues but there was no response either from the appellant or from her former employer. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and her former employer the respondent had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act.

(3.) The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant. The stand taken by the appellant before the District Forum in nut-shell was that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the reason for delay in payment of P. F. dues to the respondent was that the appellant had received the amount of P. F. to be paid to the respondent very late from the former employer of the respondent.