ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed against order dated 29.02.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 287 of 2013 title Lalit Singh vs. Italian Thai Development Public Company Ltd. & Ors. Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Shri Lalit Singh filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite parties pleaded therein that complainant was employed as Assistant Manager with opposite party No. 1 w.e.f. 27.05.2004 to 01.07.2008. It is pleaded that provisions of employee provident fund were applicable to the complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 1 deducted amount from the salary of complainant for contribution in the employee provident fund. It is further pleaded that complainant was discharged from service by opposite party No. 1 on 01.07.2008. It is further pleaded that complainant after completing all formalities submitted his claim for the refund of amount outstanding to his credit in the EPF account. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 1 sent several requests to opposite party No. 2 either to transfer the account to regional office at Shimla or to release the payment at its own level. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 2 did not transfer the account of complainant to its regional office at Shimla nor released the payment. It is further pleaded that amount of Rs. 65000/- (Sixty five thousand) was due to complainant but opposite parties failed to settle the claim of complainant within a reasonable time. It is further pleaded that due to unwarranted and unjustified delay in release of payment of EPF amount complainant had sustained unnecessary harassment, mental torture and agony. Complainant sought relief directing the opposite parties to release the payment of outstanding amount to the tune of Rs. 65000/- (Sixty five thousand) which is in the credit of complainant in his EPF account alongwith interest. Complainant also sought additional relief of penal interest @12% per annum w.e.f. 01.07.2008 till the date of entire payment. Complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) on account of mental torture and agony. Complainant also sought relief of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand) on account of litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that complainant was appointed as AFM on 27.07.2004. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) on account of mental torture and agony. Complainant also sought relief of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand) on account of litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that complainant was appointed as AFM on 27.07.2004. It is pleaded that complainant was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager and was retired from service on dated 01.07.2008. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 1 had remitted the entire amount to opposite party No. 2. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 2 is under obligation to settle the claim of complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 1 is not under obligation to release any amount and amount would be released by opposite party No. 2. Prayer for dismissal of complaint against opposite party No. 1 sought. 4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 pleaded therein that date of joining of complainant is 01.08.2004 and not 27.05.2004 as per record provided by opposite party No. 1. It is pleaded that date of exit of complainant is 28.02.2008 and not 01.07.2008 as per record provided by opposite party No. 1 It is further pleaded that claim was processed and sum of Rs. 59112/- (Fifty nine thousand one hundred twelve) was transferred to RPFC Shimla H.P. i.e. opposite party No. 3 vide cheque No. 408639 dated 26.11.2011. It is further pleaded that amount was debited on 21.12.2011 vide document annexure A. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 2 performed its job and nothing is due from opposite party No. 2. It is further pleaded that EPF amount of complainant was settled within a period of one year. It is further pleaded that some time took to complete the process due to shifting of office of opposite party No. 2 from Wazirpur to Dwarka and due to installation of new software. 5. Opposite party No. 3 did not file any version and adopted the version filed by opposite party No. 2 as is evident from the order passed by learned District Forum dated 05.05.2015. 6. Complainant also filed rejoinders and reasserted the allegations mentioned in complaint. 7. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed opposite party No. 3 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Shimla-9 to refund Rs. 6. Complainant also filed rejoinders and reasserted the allegations mentioned in complaint. 7. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed opposite party No. 3 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Shimla-9 to refund Rs. 59112/- (Fifty nine thousand one hundred twelve) with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual payment. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite party No. 3 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Shimla-9 to pay Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) as compensation to complainant. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite party No. 3 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Shimla-9 to pay Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) as litigation costs to the complainant. 8. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Shimla H.P. i.e. opposite party No. 3 filed present appeal before State Commission. 9. None appeared on behalf of appellant before State Commission at the time of arguments of appeal. State Commission decided to dispose of appeal on merits. We have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of co-respondent No. 1 and we have also perused entire record carefully. 10. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 11. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent was employed as Assistant Manager with opposite party No. 1 w.e.f 27.07.2004 to 01.07.2008. There is further recital in the affidavit that provisions of employee provident fund were applicable to the deponent. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No. 1 deducted contribution amount from the salary of deponent. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent was discharged from the service by opposite party No. 1 on dated 28.02.2008. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent after completing all necessary formalities submitted his claim for refund of amount outstanding to his credit in EPF account. There is further recital in the affidavit that in the month of March 2008 regional office of opposite party No. 2 was opened at Shimla H.P. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No. 1 made several requests to opposite party No. 2 either to transfer the account to its regional office at Shimla H.P. or release the amount at its own level. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No. 2 did not transfer the account of deponent to its regional office at Shimla nor released the payment of EPF amount to deponent. There is further recital in the affidavit that amount of Rs. 59112/- (Fifty nine thousand one hundred twelve) was due to the deponent from EPF account. 12. Opposite party No. 1 filed affidavit of Hem Raj Sharma posted as Manager in Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is working as Manager in ITD Co. Ltd. at Kyan Tehsil Sunder Nagar District Mandi H.P. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No. 1 had remitted the entire amount of PF to the opposite party No. 2. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No. 1 is not liable for the payment of PF to the complainant. Learned advocates appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 stated before learned District Forum that they do not want to adduce any evidence. 13. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that complainant has no territorial jurisdiction to file consumer complaint before learned District Forum Mandi and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Jurisdiction of learned District Forum is defined under section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Operative part of section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is quoted in toto: "(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) The opposite party or each of the opposite parties where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or (b) Any of the opposite parties where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or (c) The cause of action wholly or in part arises. 14. 14. It is proved on record that address of opposite party No. 1 is shown as Slapper Tehsil Sunder Nagar District Mandi H.P. In the present case one of the opposite parties is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Mandi. Hence it is held that learned District Forum Mandi has territorial jurisdiction to dispose of complaint in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts. Part of cause of action also accrued to complainant within territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Mandi H.P. because amount of employee provident fund was deducted from salary of complainant at Slapper Tehsil Sunder Nagar District Mandi H.P. which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum Mandi H.P. 15. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that no application was filed by complainant for release of EPF amount before Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Kasumpti Shimla-9 and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that Employee Provident Fund Commissioner Delhi has transferred amount of Rs. 59112/- (Fifty nine thousand one hundred twelve) in favour of RPFC Shimla on dated 24.11.2011. State Commission is of the opinion that appellant was under legal obligation to pay the employee provident fund amount to the complainant. There is no evidence on record that appellant w.e.f. 24.11.2011 issued any letter to the complainant to comply any other formality and there is also no evidence on record that appellant credited the amount in the account of complainant. It is proved on record that appellant i.e. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Shimla (H.P.) remained inaction w.e.f. 24.11.2011. Even Regional Provident Fund Commissioner did not file any separate version and adopted the version filed by opposite party No. 2. i.e. Employee Provident Fund Commissioner Delhi. Employee Provident Fund Commissioner Delhi has specifically mentioned in the version that Employee Provident Fund Commissioner has processed the claim and sum of Rs. 59112/- (Fifty nine thousand one hundred twelve) vide cheque No. 408639 dated 26.11.2011 was transferred to RPFC Shimla H.P. State Commission is of the opinion that after retirement employee is legally entitled to receive the provident fund amount expeditiously. State Commission is of the opinion that public authority cannot be allowed to remain inaction for a long period. State Commission is of the opinion that public authority should be vigilant while discharging its public functions. State Commission is of the opinion that public authority cannot be allowed to remain inaction for a long period. State Commission is of the opinion that public authority should be vigilant while discharging its public functions. See 2010 (3) CPJ 270 NC title State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Surinder Jain. See 2010 (4) CPJ 151 NC title Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Hubli vs. Mallikarjun Devendrappa Verapur. See 2008 (4) CPR 338 NC title Central Broad of Trustees vs. R.C. Bhardwaj . Even Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Shimla H.P. did not adduce any evidence by way of affidavits as per modes mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence adverse inference is drawn against Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Shimla H.P. on the principles of natural justice. See AIR 1999 SC 1441 tilted Vidyadhar vs. Mankik Rao. See AIR 1999 SC 1341 titled Ishwar Bhai C. Patel vs. Hari Har Bahera . In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum. It is held that order of learned District Forum is based upon proved facts and in consonance with law. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 16. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is dismissed and order of learned District Forum announced in consumer complaint No. 287/2013 decided on 29.02.2016 title Lalit Singh vs. Italian Thai Development Public Company Ltd. & Ors. is affirmed. Annexure OP2/A dated 24.11.2011 placed on record will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.