1. IT is an appeal against the order dated 22.9.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).
2. BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was appointed as Second Clerk in the respondent-opposite party University (hereinafter called the opposite party) in the year 1971. He was promoted as an officiating Head Clerk in the construction department of Guru Nanak Dev University - opposite party. The services of the complainant were terminated by respondent No. 1 (opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No. 1) vide letter dated 26.4.1978. It is then stated in the complaint that the complainant''s provident fund amounting to Rs. 1,95,520/- was not paid to him by the University - opposite party on the ground that he was unable to produce "No Due Certificate". The complainant attributed deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. He claimed the following reliefs in the complaint:
(i) Direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,95,520/- with interest @ 18% per annum from due date till date of payment; (ii) Compensation of Rs. 20,000/-; (iii) Costs of complaint; (iv) Any other relief.
Opposite party appeared and filed written reply, wherein it has been admitted that the complainant was depositing amount in the contributory provident fund but he was not admitted to be a consumer. It is admitted in the reply that a sum of Rs. 6,240.52 p. was lying in his provident fund account, which was not paid to him due to non-production of "No Due Certificate". It is not admitted that a sum of Rs. 1,95,520/- was lying deposited in the provident fund account. The objection was also taken that the complaint was time-barred. It was ultimately prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
After hearing the Counsel for the parties and after having gone through the documents as well as evidence on the file, the District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence this appeal.
3. WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance.
We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Mohinder Singh-complainant had deposed that a sum of Rs. 6,240.52 p. was lying in his provident fund account No. 408 and he was not paid this amount on account of non-production of "No Due Certificate". The services of the complainant were terminated on 26.4.1978 vide letter No. 4527/F. If it is admitted that a sum of Rs. 6,240.52 p. had not been paid by the opposite party to the complainant on account of non-production of the "No Due Certificate" it was not a ground to withhold this amount. Opposite Party should have mentioned all the dues, which were outstanding against the complainant for which "No Due Certificate" was required. It was just not enough to write in mechanical manner that amount of provident fund could not be paid due to non-production of "No Due Certificate" which itself was to be given by the University-opposite party. The complainant was not apprised about the factual position since 1978. The complaint has, thus, rightly been allowed by the District Forum.
4. OTHER objection by the opposite party before the District Forum that the complainant was not a consumer has rightly been repelled by the District Forum, relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC)=I (1999) SLT 395=AIR 2000 Supreme Court page 31. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. This appeal is, thus, dismissed as meritless with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed.
