HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant Mr. Jawaharlal Prasad was employed with the respondent no.2 M/s Nicco Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the employer).  His services were terminated by the employer with effect from 12.04.2007.  The grievance of the complainant is that the amount which had accumulated in his EPF Account, was not paid by the petitioner.  The complainant therefore approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint impleading the petitioner as well as his employer as the Opposite Parties in the complaint. 

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the employer intimated vide Form-10 that the complainant had been dismissed from services with effect from 12.04.2007.  It was also stated by the petitioner that the complainant had not earned any salary/wages with effect from 13.04.2007 and his PF Account was not in operation. 

3.      The District Forum having dismissed the Consumer Complaint, the complainant had approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 20.01.2020, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay interest for the period from 01.04.2011 to 09.02.2017 on the principal amount of Rs.2,17,485/- which the petitioner had paid to the complainant in the meanwhile.  The compensation quantified at Rs.25,000/- was also awarded.  Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the petitioner Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is before this Commission. 

4.      It is not in dispute that the principal amount of Rs.2,17,485/- was paid to the complainant on or after 09.02.2017.  The aforesaid amount represented accumulation in the EPF Account of the complainant.  By delaying the disbursal of the aforesaid amount to the complainant, the petitioner kept on enjoying the said amount thereby depriving the complainant of the interest which he could have earned by investing that amount in a bank deposit or some other saving instrument.  Denying interest to the complainant for the period the aforesaid amount remained deposited with the petitioner will be an unjust enrichment of the petitioner and a serious monetary loss to the complainant.  Therefore, the order passed by the State Commission was eminently justified and does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  I find no ground to even reduce or set aside the compensation awarded by the State Commission considering that the complainant had to undergo the ordeal of approaching first the District Forum and then the State Commission just for getting the amount which was lying in his EPF Account and which rightfully belonged to him.  The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed.