RAMESH CHAND Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.02.2013 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, the State Commission ) in Appeal No. 714/09 M/s. BHEL Employees P.F. Trust & Anrs. Vs. Ramesh Chand & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Petitioner is an employee and his provident fund amount is being credited in his provident fund account since day of joining. Complainant submitted application for permanent withdrawal of loan for house purpose on 29.9.2004 to OP No.1/Respondent No.1 and prayed for loan of Rs.2,70,000/-. OP No. 1 returned the application on the ground that as per Rule 48 of Provident Fund Trust Rules, Provident Fund Loan is granted where clear title deed exists in the name of the seller. Complainant requested again on 12.10.2004 for grant of loan, but loan was not granted on the ground that complainant had already availed non-refundable withdrawal from his account for purchasing one DDA flat. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP Nos. 1 & 2 resisted complaint and submitted that in case of dispute between the member and the employer or trustees regarding Provident Fund, the same was to be referred to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner/Income Tax Commissioner and complainant has already availed aforesaid remedy; hence, complaint was not maintainable. It was further submitted that non-refundable advance was already made to the complainant earlier so he was not entitled to second non-refundable advance and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 3 submitted written statement and alleged that non-refundable withdrawal of Rs.5541/- and Rs.11153/- had already been made to the complainant and advance may be granted for purchasing of one house only and as non-refundable advance had already been availed by the complainant, no second advance was to be given and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to release Provident Fund loan as sought by application dated 29.9.2004 and further allowed Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.