Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that husband of the complainant was an employee under OP No.4 and he died on 8.11.2002. After the death of the said employee, his wife, who is complainant claimed that she has not got the family pension of her husband. It is her case that her husband was contributing towards EPF dues and thereby she is entitled to the family pension. Since no family pension has been paid, she filed the complaint case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

4.      OP Nos. 1 to 3 filed written version stating that they have sent Claim Form - 10 D for verification and the complainant was asked to submit Form - 10D afresh and after necessary formalities were over, the pension would be paid. He further submitted that after disposal of the complaint case before filing of the appeal, they have already complied the impugned order by paying the family pension to the complainant. He submitted that they have already filed additional affidavit in this regard before this Commission. So, he submitted that since payment has been made, there is no any deficiency in service on the  part of the OPs.

5.      OP No.4 filed written version stating that they have submitted all the documents to OP Nos. 1 to 3 with copy to the complainant but the complainant has not received the family pension till filing of the written version. On the other hand, OP No.4 supported the complainant.

6.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-

                    “xxx   xxxxxx

(1) The OP No.1 (Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund, Bhubaneswar) is directed to settle the pension case of the complainant and pay the same.

(2) The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only towards the mental agony including litigation cost.

(3) The order will be carry out within 45 (forty five) days from the date of judgment, failing which the OP No.1 is liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum over the above amounts.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has not considered the case of the OPs 1 to 3 with proper perspectives and as such the impugned order is defective. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that  the OPs have committed deficiency in service. He supports the impugned order.

9.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10.    Complainant is required to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

11.    It appears from the record that the complainant has filed a memo to withdraw the case but it was not considered as transpired from the impugned order. Not only this but also when after enquiry, the defect has already been removed on payment of family pension under the EPF Act, there is no cause of action further to proceed with the complaint case.

12.    Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.

        Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

       DFR be sent back forthwith.

       Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.