D.O.F. 21.10.2003
D.O.O. 30.06.2011
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 30th day of June, 2011.
C.C.No.356/2003
1. E.M. Ethamma,
W/o. Mathai,
Ettiyil House, P.O. Keezhpally,
Kannur Dist. – 670 704
2. B. Mohanan,
S/o. K. Bhaskaran,
Muthukkuzhi Kizhakkinkari Puthanveedu House, : Complainants
Kudappanamoodu, Via Vellarada,
Trivandrum Dist. – 695 505
3. C.P. Zainaba,
W/o. Muhammed,
Chanthappadi (H), P.O. Keezhpally,
Kannur Dist. – 670 704
(Rep. by Adv. John Joseph)
1. The Secretary, Board of Trusties, E.P.F.,
State Farms Corporation of India Ltd.,
No.14-15, Farms Bhavan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi – 19.
2. The Director, Central State Farm, Aralam,
P.O. Aralam Farm, Via- Peravoor – 670 673.
(1 & 2 rep. by Adv. V. Krishna Menon)
3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, : Opposite Parties
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Regional Office, 8th and 9th Floor, Mayoor Bhavan,
Cannaught Circus, New Delhi – 1.
4. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
E.P.F. Organisation, Sub Regional Office,
Fort Road, Kannur.
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 pay the balance amount due to the complainants under the respective EPF account with 12% interest per annum, from date of entitlement till realization and also to direct 3rd and 4th opposite parties to pass revised Pension Payment Order in respect of EPF accounts of 1st and 3rd complainant and to pay statutory interest at 12% per annum on the entire pension arrears and the commuted value of pension from the respective date of entitlement till realization with ` 2,000 as compensation with cost.
The case in brief of the complainant is that all of them were workers under 2nd opposite party and were terminated as per VRS proposed by 2nd opposite party and are subscribers of EPF and allied schemes and have identical grievance and hence complainant No.1 is submitting the complaint on behalf of herself and the remaining complainants. 1st opposite party is administering EPF account and 2nd opposite party is releasing all the payments to the complainants. The opposite parties are duty bound to maintain EPF accounts and Family Pension accounts of the complainants. The 1st opposite party is liable to pay the EPF benefits to the subscribers within 30 days from the date of application and 1st opposite party is also liable to take necessary steps towards obtainment of Family Pension to the subscribers through 3rd and 4th opposite parties. The EPF account number of the 1st complainant is 000336 and she retired from service on 26.03.2001 after completing of 29 years of service with effect from 1972. Though the first complainant had filed an application for disbursement of EPF benefits and family pension, she received the same after inordinate delay due to the negligence of opposite parties. The first complainant received a sum of ` 35,725 on 07.05.2002 as against her entitlement of about ` 1,00,000. As per annual EPF account for the year 1998-99, a sum of ` 96,494 has been accrued in the credit of the first complainant and has received the family pension benefit only during October, 2003 due to the deficiency of opposite parties, despite the fact that she had filed the necessary application immediately after her retirement. Eventhough the 1st complainant had issued registered lawyer notice dated 23.08.2002, the 3rd opposite party issued a one sentence reply stating that as per the computerized accounts no amount is due to her instead of paying the accrued benefit. After the filing of complaint 1st complainant received P.P.O. having number KR/KNR/13103 during the month of November, 2003. The complainant realized that there are some defects and short coming in the same. The supplemental 3rd and 4th opposite parties have not sanctioned. Statutory interest at the rate of 12% on the pension arrears as well as commuted value of pension to the 1st complainant, on account of the inordinate delay of more than 2 years in disbursement of Family Pension. The pensionable salary considered by supplementary opposite parties are not correct and the monthly pension ought to have been the statutory minimum of ` 763 whereas the 4th opposite party has sanctioned only ` 643 as original monthly pension. 4th opposite party ought to have sanctioned pension with effect from 26.03.2001 to 1st complainant and therefore he is entitled to get pension arrears for 6 months. As per the detailed calculation statement issued by 4th opposite party out of the total pension of ` 683 a sum of ` 40 is deducted for 2 years. The 1st complainant is entitled to receive the entire pension as she has attained 58 years of age as on 25.08.2003 and even now 4th opposite party is not disbursing the entire admitted pension payable to the 1st complainant. The inordinate delay in disbursing of family pension is caused due to the negligence on part of all opposite parties and hence the 1st complainant is entitled to get compensation.
The 2nd complainant is retired from service on 19.08.2002 after completing 16 years of service from 1986. The 2nd complainant was a staff member with a salary about ` 6000 per month at the time of his retirement. The A/C No. of 2nd complainant is 008328 and he received only a sum of ` 92,627 on 24.04.2003 as against his entitlement of ` 2,00,000. As per the annual EPF account statement given by opposite party, for the year 1999-00 a sum of ` 1,81,946 is accrued in the credit of 2nd complainant. After getting the amount he made one oral representation before 2nd opposite party regarding the shortage, who in turn assured him to make good the shortage if any in consultation with 1st opposite party. Since there is no positive response from opposite party the 2nd complainant issued a notice dated 16.05.2003 calling upon opposite party, to pay the balance amount due along with a proper calculation statement. Eventhough 1st opposite party acknowledged the notice no amount is paid.
The EPF account number of 3rd complainant is 003595 and retired from service on 26.03.2001 after completing 22 years of service with effect from 1979. Though he filed an application for disbursement of EPF benefits and Family Pension, he received EPF benefits after inordinate delay due to the negligence on the part of opposite parties. She has received a sum of ` 46,901 on 25.05.2002 against her entitlement of about ` 85,000. As per annual account statement given by the 1st opposite party for the year 1997-98 a sum of ` 98,738 had been accrued in the credit of the complainant. The 3rd complainant received P.P.O. No.KR/KNR 13259 dated 10.10.2003 in November, 2003. 3rd complainant is entitled to receive a minimum of ` 763 as monthly pension where as only a sum of ` 640 is sanctioned to her as monthly pension. 4th opposite party has not sanctioned the stipulated interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the pension arrears as well as the commuted value of pension in view of inordinate delay of more than 2 years in sanctioning the pension. The 4th opposite party ought to have sanctioned pension to 3rd complainant from 12.01.2002 and therefore she is entitled to get pension arrears for two more months. All the complainants received portion of their EPF benefits after an inordinate delay of one year and no penal interest also granted by opposite parties. All the complainant are entitled to get approximately about ` 5000 each towards interest on account of alleged payment. All these was caused due to he deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties for which they are liable to compensate the complainants. Hence this complaint.
In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum all opposite parties appeared and filed their version. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties are impleaded as parties later on.
The 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed version contending that the complainants cannot be treated as consumers, since they had not availed of any service from the opposite parties for any consideration. The relationship between 1st and 2nd opposite parties and the complainants was that of an employer-employee and was under a contract of service and hence the complaint is not maintainable. The reading of the complaint petition will show that the complainants have no case that there has been any deficiency of service on the part and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainants had been paid the exgratia amount and other retirement benefits including the amounts under EPF account accrued till the date of their retirement. There is no merit in the statement of the complainants that they are entitled for more amounts from their EPF account than that was disbursed to them during the period 1998-99, an amount of ` 18,936 had accrued to the 1st complainant’s EPF. After taking the additions to her EPF account and advance drawn etc for the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 an amount of ` 32,514 had accrued to the account of 1st complainant as on 31.03.2001 and as against the amount ` 36,030 had been paid to her on 23.04.2002 with interest upto the previous month of payment.
As regards the 2nd complainant on 31.03.2000 an amount of ` 50,993 had accrued to his EPF account and the amounts due to him with interest had been duly paid to him. It is respectfully submitted on subsequent verification of the account it is noticed that a further amount of 26,986 is payable to him. This amount has not been released to him for the reason that he had while in service stood as surety along with two others for another employee for availing a loan from the Kerala State Development Corporation for Christian converts from SC.C for an amount of ` 1,07,640. The loan amount having not been repaid the said corporation has informed the 2nd opposite party to realize the same from sureties. The two other secretes are still continuing in service and an amount of ` 7,000 per month is being realized from them. However as the 2nd complainant had already left the service of opposite party he had been informed as per letter dated 13.12.2003 to settled the dues outstanding from him to the aforementioned corporation and produce the necessary proof, on production of which the amount of ` 26,986 shall be released to him.
With respect to third complainant, as on 31.03.2001 there was an amount of ` 47,188 accrued to her EPF account. As against this amount of ` 47,186 she was paid an amount of ` 47,292 on 03.05.2002. This amount of ` 47,292 takes in the interest on the amount of ` 47,188 calculated upto the previous month of payment. As per the records of the Farm for the period 1997-98 the total credit to her account was ` 22,166.50 only. There is no merit in the statement of the complainant that there has been an inordinate delay in disbursing the amounts to them. The delay if any was owing to the fact that about 400 employees and 120 staff had simultaneously left the Farm. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are in no way liable or responsible for disbursing the pension and there is no negligence on the part of opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3rd and 4th opposite parties also filed version contending that 3rd opposite party is maintaining PF account in respect of subscribers through its board of trustee and 1st and 2nd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to give all the benefits to intended beneficiaries. As per EPF scheme 1st opposite party is liable to settle the PF account of a subscriber within 30 days from the date of submission of a claim. The 1st opposite party is also liable to take necessary steps towards obtaining family pension to the subscribers within 30 days from the date of application for family pension through concerned EPF Commissioner. The pension claim formNo.10 D in respect of 1st complainant was submitted by 2nd and 3rd opposite parties on 31.03.2003 as per letter dated 31.03.2003. The 3rd opposite party after examining of the pension claim sent it to the pension section on 29.05.2003 and this was forwarded by 3rd and 4th opposite parties for issuance of P.P.O as per letter dated 29.08.2003. The date of release of pension as per para 12(8) of EPS is 17.10.2001, the date as indicated in the claim Form No.10 D by the 1st complainant. With respect to the 3rd complainant, the form No. 10 D in respect other EPS A/C No.DL/3670/3595 was submitted by 2nd and 3rd opposite parties on 27.05.2003. The pension papers along with input dates that was forwarded to 4th opposite party for issuance of P.P.O on 18.09.2003. The 3rd opposite party retired from service on 05.04.2001 and her pension claim against EPS A/C No. DL/3670/3595 was submitted by 2nd opposite party to 3rd opposite party on 28.05.2003 as per letter dated 27.05.2003 and the date of release of pension was considered as 26.03.2003 the date as mentioned in her pension claim. Form No.10 D. As per records the date of appointment of 1st complainant is 22.03.1972 and date of membership is 01.07.1974 as per EPFS, 1952 and date of membership under EPS 1971 is 01.01.1975 and date of retirement ie 26.03.2001. Accordingly her pensionable service was calculated on the basis of past service of 19 years after excluding breaks in service of one year and nine months from the period 01.01.1975 to 15.11.1995. Her present service was arrived at 5 years from the period 16.11.1995 to 26.03.2001. The liability of paying interest at 12% per annum on belated period does not accrue against it prior to the expiring date of 30 days from the date of submission of claim on 31.03.2003 by 2nd opposite party to 3rd opposite party. So prior to 31.03.2003 no liability accrues against 2nd opposite party. The 1st complainant was entitled to receive pension from 26.03.2002, the date as indicated in Form No.10 D. The last 12 months salary was considered for arriving of 12 months average salary on the basis of records furnished by 2nd and 3rd opposite party.
As per records submitted by 2nd and 3rd opposite party the date of birth of 3rd complainant is 12.01.1952, the date of appointment is 01.03.1979. The date of membership under EPS 1971 is 01.02.1981 and date of retirement is 05.04.2001. Accordingly the pensionable service was calculated as under total past service for the period 01.01.1981 to 15.11.1995 arrived at 14 year 3 months 14 days after excluding the period of break in service of seven month from the total past service, 14 years 3 months and 14 days . Accordingly the average pensionable service was calculated on the basis of information submitted by 2nd and 3rd opposite party for the period March, 2000 to February, 2001. On receipt of pension claim 3rd opposite party sent IDs along with pension claim on 04.08.2003 for issuance of P.P.O. The delay in releasing of pension of 30 days from the date on 25.08.2003 may be condoned against 4th opposite party. Since it has to discharge multi furious activities and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant is consumer and the Forum has
jurisdiction to try the case?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief?
4. Relief and cost.
The evidence in the above case consists of Ext.A1 to A9 and Ext.B1 to B12(a).
Issue No.1
The 1st and 2nd opposite party contended that the complainants cannot be treated as consumer since they had not availed any service from the opposite parties for consideration and the relationship between the 1st and 2nd opposite party and the complainants was that of an employer-employee and was under a contract of service and hence the complaint is not maintainable. But it is a well settled position of law that the members of EPF and miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 is a consumer under the Act, since the Hon’ble Apex Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Shivakumar Joshi held that the member of scheme is a consumer under the Act and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner discharges statutory function and does not discharge any sovereign function and hence it is service under the Act and the same was reported in 2000 NCJ SC (185). So we hold the view that the complainants are consumers under the Act and the Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainants.
Issues 2 to 4 :
The further case of the complainants is that they have not received the entire EPF benefits accrued in their account and the opposite parties have not disbursed their pension, family pension etc in time and in proper manner and not disbursed the statutory interest and passed P.P.O. for lesser amount of pension than their entitlement. In order to prove their case the complainants have produced documents such as annual EPF statement for 1998-99 for the 1st complainant, copy of lawyer notice issued by the 1st complainant, reply notice dated 02.09.2002 issued by 1st opposite party to 1st complainant, Annual EPF statement for 1999-2000 for the 2nd complainant, copy of lawyernotice issued on behalf of second complainant, postal Ad, Annual EPF statement for the year 1997-98 of the 3rd complainant, lawyer notice issued on behalf of 3rd complainant, reply issued by 1st opposite party to 3rd complainant, pension calculation, letter issued by 3rd opposite party to 4th opposite party by forwarding pension details for issuing P.P.O. and pension payment order of the 1st complainant etc. In order to prove their contentions 3rd opposite party also produced documents such as letter issued by 1st opposite part to 3rd opposite party for issuing the pension paper, contribution details and description roll and subscription card of all the complainants.
In order to answer issue No.2 the grievances regarding all the complainants have to be considered separately. The 1st complainant has the grievances that eventhough she had applied for disbursement of EPF benefits and family pension, she had received the same after an inordinate delay and had received only a sum of ` 35,725 on 07.05.2002 as EPF benefits inspite of her entitlement to get ` 1,00,000. She had received Family pension benefits only during the month of October, 2003. 3rd and 4th opposite party have not sanctioned statutory interest and passed P.P.O for ` 643 after deducting a sum of 40 or 2 years. The 1st complainant has produced Ext.A1 statement for the year to show that she is entitled to get ` 96,494 as the accrued benefit in her EPF account. As per A1 statement, the closing balance as on March, 1999 is ` 18,936. Admittedly the complainant was retired from service on 26.03.2001. The 1st and 2nd opposite party had produced the broad sheet for the year 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01. Eventhough these documents are not marked they are kept in the bundle. As per this broad sheet the 1st complainant has a closing balance of ` 18,936 for the year 1998-99 , ` 22,800 for 99-2000, ` 32,514 for the year 2000-01. Admittedly the complainant had received ` 35,725 as her EPF benefit, which is more than the amount ` 32,514 in her EPF account for the 2000-01. The complainant has not produced any other documents to show that she is entitled to get about ` 1,00,000. So from the available documents it is clear that during 2000-01 she is entitled to get only ` 32,514 and hence it is seen that the first complainant is not entitled to get any more amount towards their account.
The another contention that the complainant is entitled to get ` 763 as monthly pension instead of ` 643. Admittedly the date of retirement of the 1st complainant is 26.03.2001. But as per Section 12(b) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995, a member shall be entitled to early pension if he was rendered eligible service of 10 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years. As per Section 12(7), a member, if he so desires, may be allowed to draw an early pension from a date earlier that 58 years of age but not earlier than 50 years of age. In such cases the amount of pension shall be reduced at the rate of 3% for every year the age falls short of 58 years. Accordingly the particulars regarding the 1st complainant as per Ext.B3 description roll is as follows :
Date of Birth : 25.08.1945
Date of joining EPF : 01.07.1974
Past service : 21 years and 4 months
Date of retirement : 26.03.2001
Date of attaining 58 years of age : 25.08.2003
Average salary : 2,475
The complainant has not disputed the above particulars which was considered for calculating pension. But the 1st complainant contended that there caused inordinate delay in disbursing family pension due to the negligence on part of all the opposite parties. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties produced 10-D application of the 1st complainant as annexure OP 3/6, as per this the date of application is 17.10.2001. Moreover the 3rd and 4th opposite parties produced a letter issued by 3rd opposite party as annexure OP 3/2, it was written in it as “date from which pension due and payable by the transfree region is 17.10.2001. As per Sec.12(7) of EP scheme, 1995 a member can draw his earlier pension, if he so desires and accordingly the member is entitled to get pension from 17.10.2001 ie the date on which he had applied. So we hold the view that the complainant is entitled to get pension from 17.10.2001 onwards.
As per the details shown above the date of commencement of pension of 1st complainant is from 27.03.2001. So the Sec.12(4) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 says that in the case of an existing member and in respect of whom the date of commencement of pension is between the 16th November, 2000 and the 16th November, 2005.
(i) Superannnuation or early pension shall be equal to the aggregate of
(a) Pension as determined under Subpara.
(2) for the period of service rendered from the 10th
November, 1995 or ` 438 per months whichever is more.
(b) Past service pension as provided in sub paragraph (3).
(ii) The aggregate of (a) and (b) calculated as above shall be subject to a minimum of ` 600 per month provided further, if it is less than 24 years, the pension shall be proportionately less subject to the minimum of ` 325 per month.
So as per Sec.12 (4)(1)(a) monthly member’s pension
= Pensionable salary X Pensionable service
70
Pensionable salary = ` 2475
Pensionable service from 16.11.95 to 26.03.01 = 5 year 4 months
= 2475 X 5 = ` 176.79
70
As per section 12(4)(a) the minimum pension is = ` 438
Pension as per Sec 12(4) (1)(b) :
The amount as per Sect 12 (3) (b), since
The complainant has past service of more than ` 150
21 years and salary is below 2500
The factor as per table B since the complainant
Had required less than 8 year to complete 58 2.044
Years as on 16.11.95
= 150 X 2.044
= ` 306.6
The aggregate of (a) and (b) = 438 + 306.6
= ` 744.6
The pension since the complainant has required 744.6X3 X 2
2 years to complete 58 years as on application 100
= ` 44.68
= ` 700.3
======
The 1st complainant is entitled to get ` 700.3 as monthly pension from 17.10.2001 onwards and after deducting the commuted value of ` 214 the 1st complainant is entitled to get ` 486.3 as monthly pension from 17.01.2001 to the date of attaining 58 years ie ` 25.08.2003.
The 2nd complainant contended that he is entitled to get about ` 2,00,000 as his EPF benefit instead of the amount of ` 92,627 received. As per Ext.A4, the annual EPF statement of account for the year 1999-00, the closing balance as on March, 2000 is ` 50,593. No other statement of account is produced by the complainant to prove his above contention. The complainant has produced a letter issued by 1st opposite party dated 13.12.2003. In this letter it was stated that “on verification of EPF records it is found that ` 26,986 is payable to you and you are surety for Sri. Joshi Mathew, Thadathil (H), Kunhippally for his drawal of loan from Kerala State Development Corporation for Christian converts from SC and recommended Communities Ltd, Kozhikode-11 and has not repaid by the above said Joshi Mathew”. From this it is seen that the 2nd complainant is entitled to get ` 26,986 more as his benefit. But since he is a surety for the above said loan, the above said amount can be released only after producing the loan clearance certificate from KSDC for SCs and RCs and hence it is seen that 2nd complainant is entitled to get the above said amount of ` 26,986 only from 1st opposite party.
The grievance of the 3rd complainant is that she is entitled to get ` 85,000 and had received only ` 46,901. Admittedly the 3rd complainant is retired from service on 26.03.2001. As per Ext.A7 EPF Annual statement for the year 1997-98, of the 3rd complainant the closing balance is ` 22,165.75. As per the broad sheet for the year 2000-01, the closing balance of the account of the 3rd complainant is ` 42,499.5. Admittedly the complainant received ` 46,901. So we are of the opinion that there is no more amount is accrued in the account of 3rd complainant as EPF benefit.
Yet another contention of the 3rd complainant is that she had received P.P.O. for ` 640 only and she is entitled to ` 763 and also interest for delay caused is passing P.P.O. The complainant is retired from service on 26.03.2001. As per the photocopy of the 10-D application of 3rd complainant produced by the 3rd opposite party, the 1st opposite party had received the application on 26.03.2002 and in the application the month is shown as March, 2002. So as per EPF Act, the 3rd complainant had decided to draw pension from 2002 March itself and hence we had the view that she is entitled to get pension during March, 2002. As per Ext.B12(a) the particulars with respect to 3rd complainant is as follows.
Date of Birth = 12.01.1952
Date of joining EPF = 01.02.1981
Date of joining service = 01.03.1979
Date of Retirement = 05.04.2001
Past service = 14 years and 4 months = 14 years
Date of attaining 58 years = 12.01.2010.
Average Salary = ` 2534
Since the date of commencement of pension of the 3rd complainant is on 06.04.2001 the pension of 3rd complainant can be tabulated as per Sec 12(4) of Employees Pension Scheme.
As per Sec 12 (4) (1) (a)
Superannuation or early pension
= Pensionable salary X Pensionable service
70
Pensionable Salary = 2534
Pensionable service from 5 years 4 months and 21 days
16.11.1995 to 05.04.2001
= 5 years
= 2534 X 5
70 = ` 181
As per Sect 12 (4) (a), the maximum pension = ` 438
Amount as per Sec 12 (3) (b) since the
3rd complainant has 15 years of past service = ` 105
And pensionable salary is above ` 2500
The facts as per table B since the
complainant had required less than 15 years = 3.983
to complete 58 years as on 16.11.1995
= 105 X 3.983
= ` 418.22
Aggregate of (a) and (b) = 438 + 418.22
= ` 856.22
The pension amount since the 3rd complainant = 856 – 856 X 3 X 8
Has required 8 years to complete 58 years 100
= 856 – 205.44
= ` 650.56
So it is seen that the 3rd complainant is entitled to get pension an amount of 651 from 26.03.2002 upto 12.01.2010, ie the date of attaining 58 years of age and thereafter 856 as pension. She is entitled to get 12% interest from 26.03.2002 upon the arrears of pension. So from the above discussion it is seen that the 1st complainant is entitled to get ` 486 as monthly pension from 17.01.2001 upto 25.08.2003 and from 25.08.2003 is ` 530.6 and also the arrears of pension from 17.01.2001 with 12% from 17.01.2001 till the date of payment. The 2nd complainant is entitled to get ` 26,986 from 1st opposite party and the 3rd complainant is entitled to get 651 as monthly pension from 26.03.2002 upto 12.01.2010 and from 13.01.2010 ` 856 as monthly pension along with arrears of pension with 12% interest on arrears of pension from 26.03.2002. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of 3rd and 4th opposite parties and are liable to compensate the 1st and 3rd complainant by way of ` 1,000 as compensation and ` 1,000 as cost of the proceedings to each. 1st opposite party is liable to release the amount of ` 26,986 to the 2nd complainant only on production of clearance certificate from KSDC for SCs and RCs with respect to the loan of one Mr. Joshi Mathew, Thadathil (H), Kunhippally.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the
(a) 1st opposite party to release ` 26,986 (Rupees Twenty six thousand nine hundred and eighty six only) to the 2nd complainant on production of clearance certificate form Kerala State Development Corporation for Christian converts from Scheduled Castes and recommended communities with respect to the loan of one Mr. Joshi Mathew Thadathil (H), Kunhippally.
(b) Directing 3rd and 4th opposite parties to issue revised Pension Payment Orders to 1st complainant for a monthly pension of ` 486 (Rupees Four hundred and eighty six only) from 17.01.2001 to 25.08.2003 and ` 700 (Rupees Seven hundred only) from 25.08.2003 and to pay 12% interest for the arrears of pension from 17.01.2001 upto the date of payment.
(c) The 3rd and 4th opposite parties are further directed to issue revised Pension Payment Order for ` 651(Rupees Six hundred and fifty one only) from 26.03.2002 upto 12.01.2010 and from 12.01.2010 for ` 856 (Rupees Eight hundred and fifty six only) and to pay the arrears of pension from 12.01.2010 with 12% interest till the date of payment.
(d) 3rd and 4th opposite parties are further directed to pay ` 2000 (Rupees Two thousand only) each as compensation and cost to the 1st and 3rd complainant.
3rd and 4th opposite parties are directed to comply the order within one month from the date of order, otherwise the 1st and 3rd complainants are entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Annual EPF account statement given to C1 for the year 98-99.
A2. Copy of lawyer notice sent on behalf of C1 dated 23.08.02.
A3. Copy of reply notice from 1st OP to C1 dated 02.09.02.
A4. Annual E.P.F. account statement given to C2 for the year 99-00.
A5. Copy of lawyer notice sent on behalf of C2 dated 16.05.03.
A6. Postal acknowledgment.
A7. Annual EPF account statement given to C3 for the year 97-98.
A8. Copy of lawyer notice dated 12.08.02.
A9. Copy of reply notice dated 19.09.2002 dated 19.09.02.
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1. Letter dated 31.03.03.
B2. Details of Pension fund contribution in r/o C1.
B3. Details of salary and contribution in r/o C1.
B4. Details of Pension fund contribution in r/o C1.
B5. Letter dated 19.08.03.
B6. Details of Pension fund contribution in r/o C2.
B7. Description roll of C2.
B8. Details of pension fund contribution in r/o C2.
B9. Letter dated 27.05.2003.
B10.Details of pension fund contribution in r/o C1.
B11.Details of salary and contribution in r/o C3.
B12. Details of pension fund contribution in r/o C3
B12(a). Description roll of C3.
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
