D.O.F. 17.12.2004 D.O.O. 17.02.2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President Smt. K.P. Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011. C.C.No.317/2004 1. V. Chali (Late), S/o. Vellan, Kairthakollay Tribal Colony, P.O. Aralam Farm, Kannur District. 670673 2. M. Chandrika, W/o. Madhavan Nair, Ponneth House, P.O. Keezhpally 3. C. Ammini, : Complainants W/o. Late V. Chali Kairthakollay Tribal Colony, P.O. Aralam Farm, Kannur District. 4. B. Gopalan, S/o. Late V. Chali Kairthakollay Tribal Colony, P.O. Aralam Farm, Via Peravoor. Kannur District. (Rep. by Adv. John Joseph) 1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPF organization, 8th & 9th Floor, Mayur Bhavan, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi – 1. 2. The Secretary, Board of Trustees, EPF, : Opposite Parties State Farms Corporation of India Ltd. 14-15, Farms Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19. (Rep. by Adv. Shashi D. Nambiar) O R D E R Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pass revised pension payment order in respect of the EPF account of the complainants, to pay pension arrears along with 12% interest per annum from the date of entitlement till realization and to direct 2nd opposite party to pay the entire contribution collected from the complainants after 58 years as well as the employer along with 12% interest from the respective dates of collection till realization with cost and compensation. The complainants case is that they are retired employees of Central State Farm, Aralam and are subscribers of EPF and allied schemes and are retired from service on attainment of 60 years of age. 1st opposite party is having jurisdiction to administer the EPF account of the complainants as per the delegation of authority by RPFC, New Delhi. The 2nd opposite party is collecting subscription from employer regarding their EPF account and after retiring 2nd opposite party is disbursing EPF benefits and transferring the accumulation in Family Pension account to RPFC, New Delhi for disbursement and accordingly 1st opposite party has passed pension payment orders in respect of the complainants. The complainant No.1 has retired from service in the year 2001 at the age of 60 and his account No. is D1/3670/0300. Though he had submitted an application for disbursement of Family Pension, PPO was ordered only during the month of October, 2002 and sanctioned only ` 503 as monthly pension. The years of service, last withdrawn wages etc are shown erroneously in the PPO. The 1st complainant has 28 years of eligible service for the purpose of pension and is entitled to get a minimum of ` 600 towards pension per month and no interest was also sanctioned to him for the delay eventhough he is entitled to receive the same. The 2nd complainant is retired from service in the year 2001 and received PPO only during December, 2002 from 1st opposite party. Only ` 337 is sanctioned as monthly pension. The eligible service, last drawn wages etc shown in the PPO is not correct. She is entitled to get ` 600 towards monthly pension and has not sanctioned any interest through the Family Pension paid after an inordinate delay of about one year. The 2nd opposite party collected contribution from the complainant towards EPF and allied Scheme till 60 years of age. So the complainants are entitled to get 24 months contribution to EPF and allied Scheme. Collected from the complainants as well as the employer. The complainant No.1 is died and his legal heirs are impleaded later as complainants No.3 and 4. The complainant’s issued is lawyer notice to opposite parties to pass revised PPO and to repay contribution for 24 months to both 1st and 2nd complainants. After getting the notice 2nd opposite party issued a reply through the Director, Aralam Farm requesting the complainant to fill up the attached form there to and sent back to him for disbursement of the alleged amount. Eventhough the complainants submitted the said Form to the employer on 04.09.2004, no amount is paid so far to the complainants. Hence this complaint. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed their version. 1st opposite party filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable since the complaint is not in terms of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act as neither the pension record of the complainant is being maintained within the jurisdiction of the Forum nor any cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Forum. According to 1st opposite party the pension claim Forms of the complainants were received within the office of 1st opposite party only on 04.04.2002 and on receipt the 1st opposite party initiated prompt action to settle the claim of pension as per EPS, 1995 and sent an input data sheet to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kannur for issuing PPO in favour of the complainants and the said PPO’s had already been issued by the department to the banker of the complainant. On receipt of the complaint the 1st opposite party contacted the 2nd opposite party to confirm the exact details of the contribution under EPS-95 in respect of the complainants and on receipt of the said details the 1st opposite party, again processed the said pension cases and issued revised input data sheet to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for issuing the corrigendum PPO in favour of the complainants. The monthly pension have been calculated correctly on the basis of the contribution details furnished by the employer to 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party issued necessary instructions to 1st opposite party to refund the excess contribution to the complainants. So the grievances of the complainants have already been settled in accordance with the provision of EPS-95 and hence the complaint against 1st opposite party is liable to be dismissed. 2nd opposite party also filed version with a contention that the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of Act since they have not availed any service from opposite party for consideration. The relief sought by the complainants against 2nd opposite party is that the 2nd opposite party has not refund the entire contribution which was collected after the age of 58. But as per letter dated 06.01.2005, that amount have been returned and provided to the complainants. Moreover the administrator, Aralam Farm is of a necessary party. Since the excess contribution was refunded, there is no grievance against the 2nd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above pleading the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and Forum has jurisdiction to try the case? 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party? 3. Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief? 4. Relief and cost. Issue No.1 The 1st opposite party contended that the Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction as neither the pension record of the complainant is being maintained nor any cause of action arose within the limits of the Forum. The 2nd opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer since they have not availed any service from opposite party for consideration and the relationship with the complainants and 2nd opposite party was that of a employer–employee relationship. The complainants are the ex-employees of State Aralam Farm, Kannur and their contribution towards EPF is collected from their place of employment and is being remitted to the EPF Fund to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and PPO is issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kannur. So it is clear that the opposite parties are within the jurisdiction of the Forum and cause of action also arise within the jurisdiction of the Forum and hence we hold the view that the Forum has ample jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Yet another contention is that the relationship between the 2nd opposite party and complainants is that of employer and employee relationship. But our Hon’ble Apex Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Shivkumar Joshi held that the member of EP Scheme is a consumer and the same was reported in 2000NCJ SC 185. So we hold that the complainants are consumers as per Sec 2(1)(d) of the Act. So it is held that the complainants are consumers and the Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant. In order to answer issue No.2 the following grievances of both complainants have to consider separately. The grievance of the 1st complainant is that he is entitled to get monthly pension of ` 600 instead of ` 503 and also entitled to get refunded the contribution collected after he had attained 58 years of age. The complainant has produced documents such as pension payment order of the complainants along with other details regarding pension, copy of notice issued to opposite parties, reply dated 12.08.2004, application of complainants for final withdrawal of EPF, copy the letter dated 04.09.2004, and certificate of posting dated 04.09.2004 in order to substantiate their case. As per Ext.A1 document, the details of particulars with respect to the 1st complainant is as follows. Date of Birth : 13.10.1941 Date of Retirement : 12.10.1999 Date of attaining 58 years 12.10.1999 Average Salary : ` 1,372 (Pensionable Salary) As per the above particulars, the date of commencement of pension is 12.10.1999. So the pension of 1st complainant can be tabulated as per Section 12(5) of EPS 1995. As per this “In the case of an existing member and in respect of whom the date of commencement of pension is before the 16th November, 2000. (i) The superannuation or early pension shall be equal to the aggregate of (a) Pension as determined under sub-para (2) for the period of service rendered from 16th November, 1995 or 335 per month whichever is more. (b) Past service pension as provided in sub-para (3) (ii) The aggregate of (a) and (b) calculated as above shall be subject to the minimum of ` 500 per month, provided the eligible service is 24 years. If it is less than 24 years, the pension shall be proportionately lesser but subject to a minimum of 265 per month. So as per A1 the pensionable service is 4 years. The pensionable salary is = ` 1372 So as per Section 12(2) Monthly member’s pension = Pensionable salary x Pensionable Service 70 = 1372x4/70 = 78.4 As per Section 12(5) (i) (a) the pension is = ` 335 The past service pension as per 12(5)(i)(b) ie as per Section 12(3)(b) The past service = 19 Years The factor as per table B since the salary of the complainant is ` 1372 and complainant had required 1.396 less than 4 years to complete 58 years as on 16.11.1995
The past service pension payable on completion of 58 Years of age on 16.11.1995 as per Column shown in 120 Section 12(3)(i)(b) of EPS, 1995 = 120 x 1.396 = 167.52 The aggregate of (a) and (b) = 335 + 167.52 As per Section 12(5) (ii) = 502.52 = ` 503 So the above calculation clearly shows that the amount calculated by opposite party and the PPO issued is correct and the 1st complainant is not entitled to get any more amount as monthly pension. The 2nd complainant is now getting ` 337 as monthly pension. But according to her she is entitled to get ` 600 as pension. As per Ext.A1 the particulars which are necessary for calculating monthly pension is given below. Date of Birth = 24.02.41 Date of retirement = 24.02.99 Dateof attaining 58 years 24.02.99 Average Salary = ` 1567 Past service = 15 years Pensionable Service = 3 years Eligible Service = 18 years As per the above particulars the date of commencement of pension is 24.02.1999. So the pension of 2nd complainant can also be tabulated as per Section 12(5) of EPS 1995. Accordingly The monthly member pension as Pensionable salary x Pensionable Per Section 12(2) Service / 70 = 1567x3 / 70 = ` 67.16 As per Section 12(5)(i)(a) the pension is = ` 335 (b) The past service pension as per Sec 12(5)(1)(b) The factor as per table B = 1.396 The past service pension payable as per Section 12(3)(i)(b) = 95 = 95x 1.396 = ` 132.62 The aggregate as per 12(5)(i) = 335 + 132.62 = 467.62 So the pension is = ` 500 ===== Eligible service is = 18 years So the pension as per 12(5)(ii) = 500-(500x18/100) = 500-90 = 410 ==== So from the above calculation it is seen that the 2nd complainant is entitled to get ` 410 as monthly pension and is entitled to get the pension from the date of entitlement of pension and hence he is entitled to get balance amount of pension. Yet another contention of the complainants is that the 2nd opposite party has collected contribution evenafter they have attained 58 years of age. But the 2nd opposite party contended that it is already repaid by them. No other document is before us to prove the above contention put forwarded by the complainant. So we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the above case. From the above discussion it is seen that there is deficiency of service on the part of 1st opposite party in computing the pension of the 2nd complainant. It is seen that she is entitled to get ` 410 as superannuation pension from the date of attaining 58 years of age and hence she is entitled to get balance amount of pension from 25.02.1999 with 12% interest as pension arrears till the date of payment. She is also entitled to get ` 1,000 as cost of this proceedings from 1st opposite party and order passed accordingly. The 2nd opposite party is exonerated from liability. In the result the complaint allowed partly directing the 1st opposite party to issue revised pension payment order for an amount of ` 410 (Rupees Four hundred and ten only) from 25.02.1999 and to pay balance amount of pension with 12% interest from date of entitlement till realization along with ` 1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings and 1st opposite party is directed to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise the 2nd complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. P.P.O. dated 11.09.2002. A2. Copy of lawyer notice dated 13.07.2004. A3. Certificate of posting dated 14.07.2004. A4. Reply from Director, Aralam Farm dated 12.08.2004. A5. Copy of the application dated 02.09.2004. A6. Copy of letter sent by complainant’s lawyer dated 04.09.2004. A7. Certificate of posting dated 04.09.2004. Exhibits for the opposite party B1. P.P.O. dated 04.09.2003. B2. Copy of manual calculation of pension dated 23.10.2002. B3. Copy of computer calculation of pension dated 18.02.2005. B4. Details of pension calculation of C1 dated 15.09.2003. B5. Letter dated 12.11.2002. Witness examined for the complainant Nil Witness examined for the opposite party Nil /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
