BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 24th May 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.313/2015
(Admitted on 02.09.2015)
Mr. Karunakar Bhat,
Samridhi, 1 64/21,
Vivek Nagar, 1st Cross,
Panjimogau Post,
Kulur, Mangalore 575013, D.K.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Smt. LCH)
VERSUS
1. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension)
EPF Organization, Regional Office,
Silva Road, Highlands, Mangalore 2.
2. The Management of
M/s Campco Ltd,
Mission Street, Mangalore.
Represented by its General Manager.
…......OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri JRN)
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Sri KB)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under
The complainant alleges he was working in Head Office of Campco Ltd, Mangalore and worked till 08.08.2012 continuous of his service under opposite party No.2 and was paying after 08.08.2013 has since been paid monthly pension. The complainant had earlier opted to Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and was member contributing to the fund. The scheme of 1971 was replaced by opposite party No.1 and with effect from 15.11.1995 known as Employees Pension Scheme 1995 (EPS 1995). Complainant came to know that the cases filed by some of the KSRTC employees stating there was error in fixing the monthly pension by opposite party No.1. He also claims the claim of opposite party No.1 as per new pension scheme past service benefit cannot be given to him. Employees Pension Scheme 1995 be given to the complainant is not correct in Civil Appeal No.30844/2010 the Supreme Court kept open the question of law relating to past service of the employee by paying the pension amount. As such the rejection of complainant’s claim by opposite party No.1 is unjustified. He also claims he is entitled for benefit in respect of both past and present service as defined in para 12 (3.5) (a) and 12 (3.5) (b) of the scheme was not followed by opposite party No.1. Under para 10(2) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 complainant is entitled for benefit of 2 years weightage and also benefit under para 32 Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and seek the relief claimed in the complaint.
2. Opposite party No.1 filed version mentioning complainant had been paying the monthly pension his past service as defined under para 2 (1) (xii) Employees Pension Scheme 1995 is 8 years 9 months and total pensionable service as defined in Para 2 (1) (xv) of the scheme is only 17 years 6 months and the complainant had completed the age of 58 years and he has availed early pension at the age of 55 years. Hence he is not eligible for 2 years benefit as his total service is only 17 years. He is also not entitled for para 12(1) (a) and no benefit under 32 as annual relief can be granted only by central government notification. Hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.
3. In support of the above complaint Mr. Karunakar Bhat filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered to the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C2 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. V Husenappa (RW1) Assistant P.F Commissioner (Pension), also filed affidavit evidence and answered to the interrogatories served on him.
4. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of arguments. We have considered entire case filed on record including evidence tendered by parties. Our findings on the points are as under follows:
Point No. (i) : Affirmative
Point No. (ii) : Negative
Point No. (iii) : As per the final order.
REASONS
5. POINTS No. (i): That complainant is a person drawing pension from opposite party No.1 due to his service render with opposite party No.2 is undisputed. Hence there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. The claim of complainant of benefit under para 10 (2) and 12 (3.5)(a) and 12 (3.5) (b) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and also relief under para 32 were claimed by complainant and disputed by opposite party. Hence there is live dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act. Hence we answer point no.1 in the affirmative.
6. Points No. (ii): Opposite party refer to the definitions of actual service, past service and pensionable service of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 section 2(1)(Xii) and 2(1)(XV) para 2 (ii) read thus:
(ii) Actual Service means the aggregate of periods of service rendered from the 16th November, 1995 or from the date of joining any establishment whichever is later to the date of exit from the employment of the establishment covered under the Act;
(Xii) Past Service means the period of service rendered by an existing member from the date of joining Employees’ Family Pension Fund till the 15th November, 1995.
(XV) Pensionable Service means the service rendered by the member for which contributions have been (received or are receivable).
7. Para 9 mention how eligible service is to be determined as follows:
9. Determination of eligible service.
(a) In the case of new entrant the actual service shall be treated as eligible service. The total actual service shall be rounded off to the nearest year. The fraction of service for six months or more shall be treated as one year and the service less than six months shall be ignored.
(b) In the case of the existing member the aggregate of actual service and the past service shall be treated as eligible service. Provided that if there is any period in the past service for which the contributions towards the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 has not been received, the said period shall count as eligible service only if the contributions thereof have been received in the Employees Pension Fund.
8. Para 10 as to determination of Pensionable service read thus:
Determination of Pensionable Service:
- The pensionable service of the member shall be determined with reference to the contributions (received or receivable) on his behalf in the Employees Pension Fund.
- In the case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and/or who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding a weightage of 2 years.
9. In the case on hand the claim of opposite party that the complainant retired at the age of 55 years, that his total period of past service as defined under para 2 (1) (xii) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 is 8 years and this total pension service as defined at par 2 (1) (xv) of the scheme only 17 years 6 months and that is his total past service +pensionable service is not disputed by complainant. Even in his affidavit evidence filed subsequent to this version filed by opposite party the statement made by opposite party No.1 in the version is undisputed by complainant.
10. That complainant retired subsequent to 21.9.2009 i.e. he retired on 8.8.2012 is undisputed.
11. In the circumstance of this nature, the learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has drawn our attention to a decided case by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Appeal Nos.1271 to 1295/2016 dated 15.12.2016 at para 12, 13 and 14 are which is by considering the amended para 12 of the scheme of 1995 amended para 10 (2) as quoted at this order and para 12, 13 and 14 reads thus:
10. With regard to the question of giving of weightage of 2 years it is seen that para 10(2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 the employee is entitled for additional weightage of 2 years in the circumstances detailed there under. For the sake of convenience the said para 10(2) is excerpted hereunder:
In the case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and/or who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding a weightage of 2 years.
12. Thus, if an employee is retired after attaining the age of 58 years, but, before 24.07.2009, he is entitled for weightage of 2 years of pensionable service irrespective of rendering pensionable service of 20 years or not.
13. If an employee retires before 24.07.2009, but, before attaining the age of 58 years, he is entitled for the additional weightage of 2 years depending upon 20 years pensionable service.
14. If an employee retires after 24.07.2009, then he is entitled for weightage of 2 years provided the employee complies with both the conditions of age and pensionable service, i.e. he must also have put in pensionable service of 20 years to get the additional weightage of 2 years.
12. Thus certain undisputed fact by the complainant in this case that his pensionable service is 17 years 6 months and that he retired when he attained at the age of 55 years and was not in service on the date of superannuation and that his total service was less than 20 year. In the circumstance that has retired subsequent to 24.7.2009 i.e. subsequent to the amendment of para 10 (2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 complainant is not entitled for benefit under para 10 (2) of the pension that under 12 (3.5) (a) and (b) of the scheme of 1995. In the respect of complainant’s claim under para 32 of the said scheme of 1995 is considered mentioned such benefits as to be given to the pensioner only if Central Government declares any benefit under para 32 of the scheme of 1995 when no such declaration is made by the Central Government question of opposite party No.1 making payment to complainant does arise. Hence on all counts claimed by complainant there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party made out by complainant. Hence we answer point No.2 in the negative.
13. POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 9 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 24th May 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(LAVANYA M. RAI) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Karunakar Bhat
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: letter written by complainant to opposite party
Ex.C2: copy of Pension payment Order (pensioners portion) Part I
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Mr. V Husenappa Assistant P.F Commissioner (Pension),
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 24.5.2017 PRESIDENT
