JUDGMENT T.S.P.Moosath, Judicial Member - Both these appeals are filed by the appellants against the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam, in short, the district forum in CC.No.298/15 by which the opposite parties 1 & 2 / appellants were directed to pay Rs 10, 000/- as compensation and Rs 5000/- as cost to the complainant / first respondent. The first opposite party in the complaint has filed Appeal number 590/16 and second opposite party has filed Appeal number 599/16. 2. The case of the complainant is in brief as follows. On 01.09.1984, the complainant joined second opposite party publication as photographer and the first opposite party allotted PF Account number KR/5975/176. The second opposite party denied employment to the complainant from 11.07.2014. So the complainant submitted an application in Form No.19 before the first opposite party on 07.03.2015 for withdrawing the provident fund. The first opposite party has to make the payment within 30 days on receipt of the application. But the first opposite party made the payment only on 15.10.2015, after 222 days. The act of the first opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant has filed the complaint claiming Rs 1, 00, 000/- as compensation and cost. The first opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. The claim form submitted by the complainant was not attested by the second opposite party, the employer as per the stipulations and employees provident fund scheme 1952. So the first opposite party forwarded the claim form of the complainant to the second opposite party on 19.03.2015 with direction to attest the claim form and to returned it within 7 days of the receipt of the same. But the second opposite party has not returned the claim form after attestation within the time limit. On 08.10.2015 the first opposite party sent a letter to the second opposite party informing them that legal action will be initiated against them in failure of non transmission of the claim form after attestation. The second opposite party has forwarded the claim form after attestation on 15.10.2015 on completion of the requirements stipulated in the claim. The claim of the complainant was settled on the same day itself and the amount was credited to his account on 20.10.2015. The second opposite party has forwarded the claim form after attestation on 15.10.2015 on completion of the requirements stipulated in the claim. The claim of the complainant was settled on the same day itself and the amount was credited to his account on 20.10.2015. So it can be seen that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. The second opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. On getting letter from the first opposite party the second opposite party had immediately informed them that the said application could not be attested, since the service particulars of the complainant shown in the application were incorrect. The dispute pertaining the service of the complainant was pending before the Hon''ble High Court and Labour Court, Ernakulam and Idukki. On 08.10.2015 the first opposite party directed the second opposite party to effect suitable corrections in the claim form of the complainant and to transmit the corrected application. So, after making corrections in consonance with the service records of the complainant maintained by the second opposite party, application was retransmitted to the first opposite party on 15.10.2015 and the first opposite party has settled the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the second opposite party. 3. No oral evidence was adduced by both sides. Ext A1 was marked on the side of the complainant and Exts. B1 & B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the opposite parties 1 & 2 have filed the Appeal numbers 590/16 & 599/16 respectively. 4. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 5. The allegation of the complainant is that there was delay on the part of the first opposite party in disbursing the provident fund amount to him and its amounts to deficiency in service. There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant submitted the claim form to the first opposite party on 7.03.2015. Perused the records. 5. The allegation of the complainant is that there was delay on the part of the first opposite party in disbursing the provident fund amount to him and its amounts to deficiency in service. There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant submitted the claim form to the first opposite party on 7.03.2015. Since the claim form was not attested by the second opposite party the employer, as per the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, the first opposite party forwarded the claim form to the second opposite party on 19.03.2015 with the direction to attest the claim form and to return it within 7 days but they have not complied the direction. The second opposite party has forwarded the claim form after attestation on 15.10.2015. On completion of the requirements as stipulated in the scheme, the claim of the complainant was settled by the first opposite party, on the same day it itself and the amount was credited to his account on 20.10.2015. So admittedly there is delay of above 7 months in settling the claim of the complainant by the first opposite party. According to the first opposite party the delay was due to the non transmission of the claim form after attestation by the second opposite party. According to the second opposite party on getting letter from the first opposite party they informed them that the application could not be attested since the service particulars of the complainant stated in the claim from are incorrect. The dispute pertaining to the service of the complainant were pending before the Hon''ble High Court of Kerala, Labour Court, Ernakulam and Idukki. Ext.A2 is the copy of the order of the Hon''ble High Court in IA.No.99/16 in OP (LC) No.20/2014, dated on 28.01.2016. The second opposite party has not produced any document to show whether the said petition was disposed of by the Hon''ble High Court or whether it was still pending. Any way it is admitted that the second opposite party has forwarded the claim form of the complainant after attestation on 15.10.2015. The second opposite party has no case that the delay occurred on their part. Any way it is admitted that the second opposite party has forwarded the claim form of the complainant after attestation on 15.10.2015. The second opposite party has no case that the delay occurred on their part. Since the O.P mentioned in Ext.B2 was pending before the Hon''ble High Court, They have no specific case that immediately after the disposal of the said O.P they had sent the claim form of the complainant, after attestation, to the first opposite party. If the said O.P is still pending what prevented the first opposite party in retransmitting the claim form of the complainant after attestation and why they have waited till 15.10.2015 is not explained by the second opposite party. So it can be seen that there is no reasonable explanation on the part of the second opposite party in for the delay on their part in retransmitting the duly attested claim form of the complainant to the first opposite party. On 19.03.2015 the first opposite party forwarded the claim form of the complainant to the second opposite party with a direction to attest the same and to return it within seven days on receipt of the same, but they have not complied with the direction. As observed by the district forum it is the bounden duty of the first opposite party to take appropriate legal action against the second opposite party. As per the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act ample power is given to the first opposite party to take necessary action against the disobedient employer, like opposite party no.2. The first opposite party issued the letter to the second opposite party on 19.03.2015 with a direction to send back the claim form after attestation within 7 days. But they have not complied with the direction. But there after only on 08.10.2015 the first opposite party sent a letter to the second opposite party informing them that legal action will be initiated against them in failure of non transmission of claim form, after attestation. Then only the second opposite party forwarded the claim form of the complainant after attestation. No reasonable explanation is given by the first opposite party for the delay on their part, in taking appropriate action for getting the duly attested claim form from the second opposite party. Then only the second opposite party forwarded the claim form of the complainant after attestation. No reasonable explanation is given by the first opposite party for the delay on their part, in taking appropriate action for getting the duly attested claim form from the second opposite party. Considering the evidence, facts and circumstances it can be seen that the finding of the district forum that both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the delayed payment which caused mental pain, loss and suffering to the complainant, the acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and so the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties is correct. We find that there is no reason / ground to interfere with the order passed by the district forum. 6. The district forum has directed the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs 10, 000/- and cost of Rs 5000/- to the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we consider that the compensation and cost ordered is to be reduced to Rs 5000/- and Rs 2000/- respectively and the order passed by the district forum is to be modified to that effect. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed and the order passed by the district forum is modified as follows. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs 5000/- as compensation and Rs 2000/- as cost to the complainant. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The first respondent/ complainant is permitted to get realsie of the amount of Rs 3250/- deposited by the appellant in Appeal 590/16 and Rs 3750/- deposited by the appellant in Appeal no.599/16, at the time of filing the appeals, on filing proper application, to be adjusted towards the compensation and cost ordered.