JAYANTI DEVI Vs. RAMESHWAR NATH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under Sec. 21( b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dtd. 5/11/2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 421 of 2018 in which order dtd. 5/2/2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 894 of 2013 was challenged, inter alia praying for :

(2.) While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Appellants and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent in the said FA No. 421 of 2018 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioners were Complainants and Respondents was Opposite Party before the District Forum in CC No. 894 of 2012. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 23/1/2020. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 3/12/2020 and 9/1/2023 respectively.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Late Tribhuwan Pandey had served under OP in Shri Gandhi Ashram. He was dismissed from the service against which, case is pending before Labour Court, Lucknow. According to the Complainants, despite asking for the Provident Fund amount many times from the OP, the amount was not paid. However, Tribhuwan Pandey died with serious disease ( Petitioner / Complainant No.1 is the wife of Tribhuwan Pandey and Petitioner No.2 to 4 / Complainant Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of Tribhuwan Pandey) The OP sent a letter dtd. 16/9/2011 to the Complainant no.1, wife of deceased vide which OP demanded Succession Certificate as the amount in the PF was more than Rs.5000.00. Vide letter dtd. 26/9/2012, complainants sent a letter to the OP demanding clear amount of the PF amount so that Succession Certificate could be made after depositing Court Fee but OP did not disclose the amount nor made the payment. Being aggrieved by the said act of the OP, the Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum, the Complainants / Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed. Hence the Complainants are before this Commission now in the present Revision Petition. (Initially Complainants filed the CC No. 894 of 2012 before the District Forum - I for direction to the OP to disclose as to how much amount of fund and other dues are deposited and also direction to the OP for paying fund with interest and Rs.1,00,000.00 compensation. The District Forum vide order dtd. 11/3/2014 dismissed the said CC. Being aggrieved of the said order of the District Forum, Complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dtd. 28/9/2017 remanded the matter back to the District Forum for fresh disposal.)