DENA BANK Vs. BRIJ DATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21 (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 12/8/2016 in First Appeal No. 964 of 2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the 'State Commission') arising from the order dtd. 10/6/2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - II, New Delhi (in short, the 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint no. 313 of 2008. The State Commission's order upholds the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint of the respondent/complainant.

(2.) The facts, as per the petitioner/opposite party, are that the late respondent was its employee who was suspended for financial irregularities on 12/9/1997 and dismissed from service on 21/3/2002 on being found guilty. The respondent challenged this order through Writ Petition (C) 17496 of 2005 before the High Court, Delhi which was contested by the petitioner. On 11/2/2008 the respondent submitted the required forms to the petitioner under the Dena Bank Employees Provident Fund Rules and on 7/3/2008 a sum of Rs.3,73,952.00 was paid after adjusting Rs.20,149.00 towards vehicle loan. The respondent/complainant approached the District Forum claiming to have been paid Rs.1,77,315.00 less. Upon contest, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed payment of Rs.1,77,315.00 with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 21/2/2002 till 7/3/2008 on Rs.5,71,267.00 along with Rs.20,000.00 for mental agony and Rs.11,000.00 as costs. The appeal, which was contested by the petitioner, was allowed by the State Commission. This order is assailed before this Commission by way of the instant revision petition on the ground that the State Commission failed to appreciate the violation of Rule 14 of the Dena Bank Employees Provident Fund Rules, that the respondent had been removed from service, that the employer's contribution would not attract interest and that the State Commission failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and acted with material irregularity. It is argued that there was no delay since the certified copy of the impugned order dtd. 12/8/2016 was made available to it on 3/8/2017 on its application dtd. 7/7/2017.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully considered the material on the record. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.