Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/350/2019

The PF Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sri Jayalakshmi Shopping Complex, First and Second Floor, Anna Salai, Swarnapuri, Salem-4 - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.K.Ganesan, D.No.128/121, Bharathipuram, Uthangarai Post, Krishnagiri District. And Another - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.R.Meenakshi

11 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH           :     PRESIDENT

                 Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                          :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 343 of 2019

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.20 of 2016

dated 02.08.2018 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Krishnagiri)

 

Friday, the 11^th day of March 2022

 

The P.F. Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Sri Jayalakshmi Shopping Complex

1^st and 2^nd floor,

Anna Salai

Swarnapuri,

Salem – 4.                                                           .. Appellant/ 1^st Opposite Party

 

- Vs –

 

1.  P. Thangavel

     148/ 165, Bharathipuram

     Uthangarai Post

     Krishnagiri District.                                          .. 1^st Respondent/ Complainant

                                                                            

    

 

2.  The Manager

     Krishnagiri District Co-operative

             Spinning Mill Ltd.,

     Uthangarai, Uthangarai Taluk,

     Krishnagiri District.                                          ..  2^nd Respondent/

                                                                                            2^nd Opposite Party  

                    

   

    Counsel for Appellant /1^st opposite party           :  M/s.R.Meenakshi

    Counsel for the 1^st Respondent / Complainant             :  M/s.V. Balaji

                    2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Opposite party            :  Party-in-person

                                                                            

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 11.03.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.        This appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ 1^st Opposite Party under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishnagiri dated 02.08.2018 in C.C. No. 20 of 2016 along with C.C.Nos. 21,22 & 26 to 39/2016 as a common order, allowing the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent/ complainant in part.

 

2.  The appellant is the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st respondent is the complainant in CC No.20 of 2016.  The 2^nd respondent is the 2^nd opposite party.  For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred as per their ranking in the complaint.   

 

3.   The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that he was working as an employee under the 2^nd opposite party and retired from service on 07.10.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation.  While serving under the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant as an employee, enrolled himself in EPF scheme under the 1^st opposite party.  His P.F. Account No. is CB/SLM/00043081 and P.P.O No. is CB/SLM/0021411/000 /0000267.   Thereafter he was allowed to get periodical pension and the pension amount fixed is Rs.1764/-. The pension contributory period should be calculated in a month for 30 days.  But, for the complainant only 26 days was taken into account.  The balance 4 days was excluded as weekly off and the paid holidays were also treated as non-contributory period by both the opposite parties.  Thus, there is the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant approached the opposite parties requesting to regulate the weekly off period and the paid holidays as contributory period instead of non-contributory period and revise the pension accordingly, from the date of retirement and also to pay 18% per annum on account of outstanding arrear pension.  Since nothing was resolved, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 15.02.2016, seeking to set right the issue.  Though the opposite parties received the notice, they have not given any reply.  Due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties, the complainant could not get his accurate pension amount.  The complainant has got the right to receive the accurate pension which is arrayed after including the weekly holidays and paid holidays.  The complainant also seeks for weightage of two years as pensionable service, with compensation and costs.  Hence, the complainant has come forward with this complaint for the following reliefs:-

1. to direct the 1^st opposite party to bestow the accurate pension that is arrayed after including the weekly holidays, the paid holidays and weightage of two years as pensionable service;
2. To direct the opposite parties to give the applicable interest on the revised amount, from 22.11.2014 till the date of payment;
3. To direct the opposite parties to give a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards physical and mental agony underwent by the complainant due to the deficiency of service caused by the opposite parties; and  
4. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

 

4.    The said complaint was resisted by the 1^st opposite party filing a written version stating that the provident fund accumulations were sanctioned in October 2014.  A monthly pension of Rs.1764/- was also sanctioned.  The contention of the complainant that the wages for calculation of monthly pension has been taken for 26 days, omitting the 4 days weekly off as non contributory period, is denied by the 1^st opposite party.  There is variation in the number of non-contributory period in various months till the date of leaving service by the complainant, as furnished by the 2^nd opposite party employer.  Whatever the employer furnishes as non-contributory period, the same is taken into account and the 1^st opposite party has no locus standi in this issue.  Only as per the details furnished by the employer regarding the non-contributory, the calculation has been made and that the 1^st opposite party has no role to play, for making any changes.  Thus, he sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.  The 2^nd opposite party has also filed a written version stating that the Provident Fund accumulations and monthly pension has been sanctioned by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Salem based on the details furnished by the Mills.  The monthly pension sanctioned by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is being regularly paid to the members till date.  The Mills furnish the details of individuals, worked day, weekly holidays and non-contributory period to Provident Fund office while filing the claim application.  Non-contributory period means the individual’s non-working days during the Mill service, from the date of joining till the date of leaving service.  It is for the Provident Fund Office to arrive and calculate the pension amount, based on the details given by the Mills and the Mills cannot interfere with the Rules and Regulations of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

6.    In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant along with proof affidavit, 3 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.  On the side of both the opposite parties proof affidavits have been filed.  The 1^st opposite party has filed two documents, which were marked as Ex.B1 series and B3 and the 2^nd opposite party has filed 1 document and the same was marked as Ex.B2.

 

7.  Pending trial, the 1^st opposite party had realised their mistake and had revised the pension of the complainant, after applying 2 years weightage on pensionable service to the members, who were superannuated on or after 24.07.2009 and to that effect a revised working sheet was submitted and the same was marked as Exh.B3.  The complainant has not objected the revised pension working sheet produced by the 1^st opposite party but they demanded interest for the delayed period apart from the demand of compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party and for the litigation expenses.   Hence, the District Forum has directed the 1^st opposite party to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the revised monthly pension amount, after deducting the existing monthly pension from the date of the retirement and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/- towards litigation expenses.  Aggrieved over the interest as well as the compensation and litigation expenses,

the present appeal has been filed by the 1^st opposite party, Provident Fund Commissioner.

 

8.    It is the main contention of the counsel for the appellant/ 1^st opposite party that they have settled the grievances of the complainant immediately on receipt of acceptance from the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, and had paid the revised monthly pension along with arrears of pension, by adding weightage of two years on their pensionable service.  Therefore, the question of awarding interest and compensation does not arise, in this case.  Thus they sought for setting aside the order of the District Forum.

 

9.  Heard the submission of the counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record.

 

10.  We find some force in the submission made by the counsel for the 1^st opposite party.  There cannot be double benefit to the complainant.  Hence, the 9% rate of interest awarded by the Forum on the revised pension is hereby set aside.  Since there was a delay in paying the revised pension, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the District Commission need not be set aside.  However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case a sum of Rs.5000/- awarded as compensation towards mental agony by the District Commission is reduced to Rs.4000/-.  Similarly, the sum of Rs.2000/- awarded towards litigation expenses is reduced to Rs.1000/-.  Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part.

 

11.  In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed.  The interest of 9% p.a. awarded by the Forum on the revised pension is hereby set aside.  Since there was a delay in paying the revised pension, the complainant is entitled for the compensation amount.  However, the sum of  Rs.5000/- awarded as compensation towards mental agony by the District Forum is reduced to Rs.4000/-.  Similarly, the sum of Rs.2000/- awarded towards litigation expenses is reduced to Rs.1000/-.   Except these modifications, the common order dated 02.08.2018 passed in C.C. No.20 of 2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishnagiri, is confirmed in all other aspects.  Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed.

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                                                       R.SUBBIAH

           MEMBER                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March/2022