Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Vijay Kumar Kalra - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 21 - comparative citation: 2003 (3) cpj 276lokeshwar prasad, president: 1. the present appeal filed by the appellant under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act) is directed against order dated 29.10.2002 passed by the district forum, kasturba gandhi marg, new delhi in complaint case no. oc/239/2000 entitled shri vijay kumar kalra v. the regional provident fund commissioner and anr. 2. the facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal briefly stated are that the respondent shri vijay kumar kalra had filed a complaint before the district forum averring therein that he had applied for an advance of rs. 1,10,000/- from his provident fund account on 11.1.1999 which was sanctioned on 15.2.1999 and the respondent was informed that the cheque for the amount of advance sanctioned in his favour amounting to rs. 1,10,000/- would be sent directly to the delhi development authority (for short ‘dda) within two weeks. it was stated that the above said advance was applied by the respondent with a view to make payment of instalments to the dda. the last date for payment of instalments to the dda was 30.3.1999. it was stated that the respondent received a letter dated 22.3.1999, from the dy. general manager, mysore sales international ltd., state emporium complex, baba kharak singh marg, new delhi stating that a cheque of rs. 1,10,000/- had been sent to dda. it was stated that on receipt of the above communication from the end of the respondent no. 2, when respondent, shri vijay kumar kalra went to confirm the same from the office of dda, the offcials of dda informed him that no such cheque had beeen received. it was stated that due to delay on the part of the appellant, the respondent could not make payment of his instalments in time to the dda and due to the delay in payment, the dda imposed a penalty of rs. 35,289/-. it was stated that the respondent further had to pay interest of rs. 1,048/- to canara bank due to delay in payment. it was prayed by the respondent shri vijay kumar kalra in the complaint, filed by him that the appellant be directed to pay a sum of rs. 35,289/- paid by him by way of penalty and another sum of rs. 1,048/- paid by him by way of interest due to default on the part of the appellant to the respondent. the respondent has also claimed cost of litigation and interest. 3. the claim of the respondent in the district forum was resisted by the appellant and respondent no. 2 (dy. general manager, mysore sales international ltd., state emporium complex, baba kharak singh marg, new delhi). respondent no. 2, dy. general manager, mysore sales international filed a separate reply/written version and stated that there was no negligence/deficiency in service on his part. 4. in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellant, it was stated that the application for advance from the provident fund was received in the office of the appellant on 11.1.1999. it was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant as the advance was sanctioned by the appellant on 15.2.1999 and the cheque for rs. 1,10,000/- in the name of dda was sent to the above said institution on 16.3.1999. 5. the learned district forum vide impugned order has held that there was delay/negligence on the part of the functionaries of the appellant who had not taken into consideration the urgency of the matter in sending the cheque in question so as to reach the office of dda before 30.3.1999. on the basis of the above finding, the learned district forum has passed the order, being impugned in the present proceedings. 6. feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 15 of the act. 7. we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. in the present appeal, filed by the appellant, the only question requiring consideration by this commission is as to whether there was any delay/negligence on the part of the functionaries of the appellant in remitting the amount of advance, amounting to rs. 1,10,000/- to dda, resulting in payment of penalty and interest by the respondent. on the basis of material on record, it is not in dispute that the application in the prescribed form alongwith other requisite information was received in the office of the appellant on 11.1.1999. it was also within the knowledge of the appellant that the amount in question was to be forwarded to dda so as to reach the office of dda on or before 30.3.1999. on the basis of material on record, it is also not in dispute that the functionaries in the office of the appellant took more than two months in sanctioning the amount of advance. no justification, whatsoever has been given for the above inaction on the part of the appellant as a result of which the amount could not be deposited in the office of dda in time and the respondent had to pay penalty and interest amounting to rs. 36,337/- which clearly amounts to deficiency in service. in the given facts, no fault can be found with the finding of the learned district forum so as to call for any interference by this commission in exercise of its appellate powers. the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is therefore, devoid of substance. the same, therefore, merits dismissal. accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. appeal dismissed in limine.