PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. GULABRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act "), the Provident Fund Commissioner and its Associate, Opposite P ies No. 3 and 4 in the Complaint under the Act, call in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 24.10.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur Circuit Bench at Nagpur (for short "the State Commission ") in First Appeal No. A/08/500. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners herein, as barred by limitation as well as on merits.

(2.) The Appeal had been filed by the Petitioners against the order dated 08.03.2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bhandara (for short "the District Forum ") in Complaint Case No. 36 of 2005. By the said order, the District Forum, while partly allowing the Complaint, preferred by Respondents No. 1 to 11, the Complainants, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioners herein, in not paying the pension, had directed Respondents No. 12 and 13/Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 to get the requisite Form 10-D and other documents completed from the Complainants; send the same to the Petitioners for extending the pensionary benefits to the Complainants; and pay to each of the Complainants Rs.500.00 towards physical and mental harassment and Rs.500.00 as litigation costs, within one month from the date of the said order. Besides, the Petitioners were also directed to extend the pensionary benefits to the Complainants from 16.11.1995, within three months of receipt of the said documents.

(3.) The Complaint came to be filed under the following circumstances: