F.A.233 OF 2015 &

           F.A.206 OF 2015            

                 Heard learned counsel for both the parties.  Both the appeals arises out of order passed in C.C. No.97 of 2014.

2.           This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.             The case of the of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant used to pay the employee’s PF dues to the bank who used to deposit with the OP No.1. It is alleged inter-alia by the complainant that the complainant was proceeded under EPF Act for not having timely deposit of PF dues.  Being surprised he enquired the matter and found that the necessary fees have been deposited to the bank and the bank had debited to his account to make deposit with the OP No.2. yet complainant faced the proceeding under EPF Act. So, alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed.

4.               The OP appeared and filed written version stating that the allegation is false. Due to non deposit of the EPF dues, a proceeding under EPF Act was started by the OP No.1 legally. According to him due to deficiency in service of the OP 2 & 3, complainant has suffered a lot including recovery.  OP No.1 has no deficiency in service. The case of OP 2 & 3 is that they have sent the amount deposited by complainant to OP No.1 after receipt of same from complainant, they have no deficiency in service.

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

                        xxxxxxx           xxxxxxxx          xxxxxxxx

            “The OP  No.1-P.F. Commissioner, Berhampur is  directed to refund Rs.1,43,214/- and Rs.51,092/- with 9% interest to the complainant and the OP No.2-SBI, Rayagada and OP No.3- SBI Kashipur are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and harassment which include cost of litigation. The OP No.1,2 & 3 are directed to comply the above order within thirty days of receipt of this order, failing which they are liable to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. on the above awarded amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties to bear their own cost.”

6.                  Learned counsel for the appellant in F.A. No.206 of 2015 submitted that they have filed the affidavit stating that they have submitted the dues in time with the PF account of complainant maintained by OP No.1. So, the liabilities are there with OP No.1 and no way bank is responsible. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all such facts but being biased passed the impugned order against the OP No.2 & 3.  Further he submitted that he has got lot of documents with him    and the matter should be remanded to the learned District Commission to decide the case afresh.

7.                 Learned counsel for the appellant in F.A. No.233 of 2015 submitted that due to late payment of dues and other payments they have started the case against the concerned persons U/S-14 of the EPF Act. Since, the dues were not paid on time, the penal amount was imposed. However, he agrees for remanding the matter to the learned District Commission for disposal according to merit. Learned counsel for the complainant also agreed that the matter may be remanded to the learned District Commission for fresh disposal.

8.                  Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.

9.                It is for the complainant to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Learned counsel for both the parties filed additional affidavit but those affidavits should have been filed before the learned District Commission. It is admitted fact that proceeding under EPF Act has been continuing on the same issue. Also it reveals from the pleading and argument of both the parties that the matter requires fresh disposal by taking the facts into consideration. There is no any objection by both the parties.

10.           In fact both the parties have produced certain citation and documents which should be dealt before the learned District Commission. Therefore, these appeals are allowed   by remanding the matter to the learned District Commission to allow both the parties to adduce evidence, if any and dispose of the case within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission on 14.03.2022 to take further instruction.

                      Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. No cost.

                    Free  copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the Confonet  or Website of this  Commission to treat same as if  copy of order received from this Commission.

                       DFR be sent back forthwith.  

                       Statutory amount be refunded.