This complaint coming up before us for hearing on                 16-07-12 in the presence of Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, advocate for complainant and 1^st opposite party representing inperson, 2^nd opposite party remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the 1^st opposite party after settling the issue with the OP2 in order to pay arrears of pension together with interest and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

2.   In short the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

        The complainant joined in M/s Chirala Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited, Ongole on 13-07-82 and immediately joined EPF scheme.  The complainant contributed to the said scheme till his retirement on 04-10-2000.  Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 came into effect from 01-04-93.   The 1^st opposite party on 10-06-02 fixed the pension of the complainant at Rs.325/- before commutation.                 M/s Chirala Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited it appears to have committed some mistake in furnishing details to the 1^st opposite party.   Management of M/s Chirala Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited sent revised proposals to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Guntur.  As per revised details the complainants pension works out at Rs.680/-.  The said PF Commission did not apply the Family Pension Scheme Rules, 1995.  The complainant earlier filed CC 220/05.               The said complaint was dismissed on 24-02-06 due to pendency of                            SLP No.2077/05 on the file of Supreme Court.  This Forum in                   CC 220/05 observed that the pension fixed by the opposite parties could be referred to for revision by the complainant after an overall legal position emerges from SLP.  The SLP 2077/05 was dismissed on                20-04-10.  The decision in WP No.21359/2000 (dated 11-06-04) on the file of High Court of Judicature, Karnataka prevailed.  The complainant is entitled to the benefits of the said judgment.   In view of the dismissal of SLP 2077/05 the complainant filed this complaint again.

3.     The 2^nd opposite party remained exparte.

4.     The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is hereunder:

        FA 283/06 preferred by the complainant before the APSCDRC was dismissed for non prosecution.  In CD 220/05 this Forum advised the complainant to approach the answering party for revision of pension.  The 1^st opposite party has rightly fixed pension of the complainant as per para 12(4) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.  It shall be deemed to have been come into force from                           16-11-95.  Thus there was no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.     Exs.A-1 to A-14 and Exs.B-1 to B-5 on behalf of complainant and OP1 were marked respectively.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable in view of the orders in CC 220/05?
2. Whether the 2^nd opposite party committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought?
4. To what relief?

7.  POINTS 1 & 2 :-   The registry raised an objection regarding maintainability of this CC in view of orders passed by this Forum on 24-02-06 in CC 220/05.   The complainant after the dismissal of SLP 2077/05 on 20-04-10 filed this complaint on 25-01-11.  The contention of the complainant that dismissal of SLP 2077/05 gave him a right to file this case a fresh.  Considering the said objection prima facie this Forum registered the case of the complainant as                                   CC 150/2011 leaving merits to be decided at a later stage.

8.     The orders of this Forum dated 24-02-06 in CC 220/05 (Ex.B-4) became final in view of the orders of APSCDRC in FA No.283/06 on    10-07-09 (Ex.B-5).

9.     This Forum in CC 220/05 while dealing point No.1 observed the following:

                  “It is the case of the opposite party that the Judgement of Hon’ble High Court Karnataka is now under consideration by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP 2077/2005 (though no stay order have been shown to us) The Forum has seen copy of the order to Hon’ble High Court Karnataka also the copy of the SLP filed before the Supreme Court.  We feel that automatic implementation of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court orders at this stage may not be appropriate.   The pension fixed by the opposite parties could be referred for revision by complainant after an overall legal position emerges from SLP” (Emphasis supplied).

10.   The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3174/07 on 20-04-10 dismissed it and connected civil appeals along with special leave petitions.   The opposite parties herein are not parties to Civil Appeal No.3174/07 on the file of the Supreme Court.

11.   It is not the case of the complainant that he approached the respondents to revise his pension after the dismissal of civil appeal No.3174/07 on 20-04-10.  The order passed by this Forum in CC 220/05 (Ex.B-4) no where observed that the complainant can approach this Forum after the disposal of Civil Appeal No.3174/07.  The orders passed by this Forum in our considered opinion is to the affect that the complainant can approach the opposite parties to revise his pension after the disposal of civil appeal No.3174/07 by the Supreme Court.

12.   As the complainant did not approach the opposite parties after the disposal of Civil Appeal No.3174/07 by the Supreme Court we are of the opinion that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service and the complaint itself is not maintainable.  We therefore answer these points against the complainant. 

13.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation and answer this point against the complainant.

14. POINT No.4:- In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

            Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2012.

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:

                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT