EPFO Liable For Decade-Long Delay In PF Transfer; Chandigarh Commission Awards ₹50,000 Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh (Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President and B.M. Sharma, Member) held the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) guilty of deficiency in service for causing an inordinate delay of nearly a decade in transferring the complainant's provident fund and directed it to pay ₹50,000 as compensation and litigation costs.

Brief Facts:

The complainant, Omesh Garg, had an EPF account with Tech Mahindra, Pune, and later joined Infosys in July 2010, where a new account was opened.

He applied for transfer of his PF accumulations in September 2010 through his current employer. Despite repeated follow-ups and even filing an RTI application in 2011 to ascertain the status of his request, no timely action was taken by the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO).

After a delay of nearly a decade, EPFO transferred ₹6,21,826 only on 16 April 2020, against a claimed amount of ₹11,07,498.

Subsequently, during proceedings, EPFO transferred additional amounts of ₹3,67,052 (April 2022) and ₹64,841 (June 2022). The complainant alleged that a further amount remained unpaid.

Dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, seeking payment of the remaining amount along with interest, compensation, and litigation costs.

Contentions of the EPFO:

The EPFO admitted the delay in processing the claim but attributed it to technical difficulties and system-related issues affecting such cases. It contended that the complainant's claim had been duly settled, and after re-examination, all eligible amounts including interest were credited to his account in phases, and therefore no further amount was payable.

Observation and decision of the Commission:

The Commission observed that there was an unexplained delay of nearly a decade in transferring the complainant's EPF amount, and the EPFO's plea of technical difficulties was not supported by evidence, thereby amounting to deficiency in service.

Regarding the alleged shortfall, the Commission held that the complainant failed to prove any remaining dues. Accordingly, the complaint was partly allowed, and EPFO was directed to pay ₹50,000 as compensation and litigation costs, failing which interest at 9% per annum would apply.

Case No.: CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. DC/AB1/44/CC/465/2021

Case Title: Omesh Garg V. Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Click Here To Read/Download Order