REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ANR ; ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. PARASHRAM BHIMRAO MUTAGEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Pune and its Associate at Goa, Opposite Parties No. 4 and 3 respectively in the Complaint under the Act, against the order, dated 28.07.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. A/14/921 as also Miscellaneous Application No. MA/14/382, i.e. application for condonation of delay. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while observing that the Petitioners herein have failed to make out sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay of 207 days, has dismissed the Appeal on the ground of limitation.

(2.) The said Appeal had been filed against the order, dated 20.12.2013, passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Pune (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 58 of 2013, inter alia, directing the Petitioners herein to pay to the Complainant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical sufferings together with Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses within six weeks from the receipt of that order.

(3.) The Complainant, who was an employee of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, namely, Finolex Cables Ltd. with offices at Goa and Pune respectively, was the member of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. In the year 2006, when he was transferred from Goa to Pune, his contributions made under the said Scheme were also transferred by Opposite Party No.3, viz. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Goa to Opposite Party No.4, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Pune. Though the Complainant had served Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 for 9 years and 9 months and was, therefore, entitled to get pension of Rs. 942/- per month, as per the 1995 Scheme, but the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioners, even after receiving the representation made by the Complainant, did not take any steps for finalization of his pension. Left with no option, the Complainant filed the afore-noted Complaint before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and resultant physical, mental and financial sufferings and praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay to him monthly pension of Rs. 942/- from 30.04.1999 as also arrears of Rs. 42390/- with interest @ 12% per annum till realization besides Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses.