K UPENDRA Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order dated 13.6.2004 passed in Appeal No. 21 of 2004 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh. The State Commission held that failure or delay in grant of advance to a person from his Provident Fund Account would not entitle him to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and, therefore, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum in C.D. No. 251 of 2001. Hence, the complainant has come in revision before us.

(2.) In the present case, the complainant applied for an advance from his Provident Fund Account for purchase of house site on 10.10.1996. That application was rejected on 1.11.1996 on the ground that the complainant had already availed an advance from his provident fund account for house repairs during the year 1995-96, and, that there is no provision to grant loan if the member has earlier drawn advance for purchase of site, etc. Thereafter, the complainant had resubmitted the application on 18.11.1996 and this was again rejected on 16.1.1997 for the same reason. In January, 1997, the complainant had again submitted the application and inadvertently the loan was granted on 5.10.1997, which the opposite party contends that it was a mistake on the part of the officers of the opposite party and that no recovery of the said illegal advance was initiated. But, by that time the complainant suffered loss because the contracting party forfeited the earnest money.

(3.) In our view, the contention of the opposite party that the complainant is not entitled for grant of second advance, in terms of the Employees Provident Fund cheme, 1952, is unjustifiable and without any basis. For this, respondent placed reliance on Clause 68B of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The relevant portion thereof reads as under :