BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 04th March 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.260/2016
(Admitted on 01.08.2016)
Mr. P. Santhosh Kumar,
S/o Late K. Gangadhara,
Aged about 63 years,
R/a 506 B, Sangeetha Apartments,
5th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore 560 003.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri KBA)
VERSUS
1. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension)
EPF Organization, Regional Office,
Silva Road, Highlands,
Mangalore 575 002.
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension)
EPF Organization, Regional Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
No.13, Rajaram Mohan Roy Road,
Bangalore 560 025.
…...........OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri JRN)
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 claims he rendered his 27 years at Campco Ltd, and retired from service and he was contributing two Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and to the scheme of Employees’ Pension Scheme of 1995. Complainant monthly pension was fixed and credited to his account by the opposite party he came to know that there are errors in fixing monthly pension and less amount is being credited and cases were filed by KSRTC Ex Employees under para 12 (3.5) (a) and 12 (3.5) (b) of scheme of 1995 and para 10(2) of the pension of the employee is re-fixed and the benefit of the scheme of the 1995 and he is entitled for benefit of para 32 of the scheme of 1995. Hence seeks the remedy.
II. Opposite party No.1 filed the version contending that the complainant pension is being disbursed by opposite party No.1 and complainant is resident of Bangalore and this Forum has not territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
2. Opposite party No.2 filed version contending the representation of complainant was acted upon and 2 years weightage was given and the pension revised as per para 10 (2) of the scheme of 1995 increase the monthly pension from Rs.1752/ to Rs.1938/ and pension arrears of Rs.11792/ is released in the month of September 2016. There is no provision in the scheme of 1995 in an annual relief under para 32 of the scheme. Hence seeks dismissal.
3. Parties not attended any evidence.
III. 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?
We have considered entire case file on record. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Partly Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): In this case the complainant is the consumers and his pension being disbursed by the opposite party the service provider based on the contribution made by the complainant while in service. Hence opposite party cannot escape from responsibility as service provider. In fact in this case opposite party did file memo mentioning that he has worked out the entitlement of the complainant and re fixed the pension payable to the complainant and also the arrear due. But these calculation memo filed by opposite party and also from the representation of complainant indicates these worksheet of re fixing the pension due and arrears due are subsequent to filing of this complaint about a month and a half of representation given by complainant. Hence in our view there is a 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.
POINTS No. (ii): In the case opposite party No.2 did filed the calculation of pension in detail by considering the request of complainant under rule 12 (3) (a) and 12 (3) (b) and also by giving 2 years of weightage benefit to complainant and revised the monthly pension from Rs.1,752 to Rs.1,938/. Hence what is required to be done by the opposite parties are already done by them. But this was done subsequent to filing of complaint on 1.8.2016 as the refixation was done in 20th September 2016 much after filing the complaint.
2. As such while accepting the refixation of the complainant by increasing from Rs.1,762/ to Rs.1,938/ per month we are of the view that opposite party shall be directed to pay cost and compensation totally fixed at Rs.3000/ Hence we answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative.
3. As the amount had already been credited to complainant account after refixing of the pension. Only thing that we have to pass order regarding cost not refixing the pension.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following
ORDER
The Complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party directed to pay Rs.3,000/ (Rupees Three thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.
2. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
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 5 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 4th March 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 Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Nil
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 04.3.2017 PRESIDENT
