BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 13^th JUNE 2017

PRESENT

   SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI                 : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.391/2016

(Admitted on 05.12.2016)

Mr. Prabhakara Shetty,

C/o Krishnappa,

PratijivaNilayaHosamaneBettu,

BalkuruNear Primary School,

Kundapura Udupi.

                                                          ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Smt. LCH)

VERSUS

1.  The Asst. Provident Fund,

     Commissioner (Pension),

     EPF Organization, Regional Office,

     Silva Road, Highlands, Mangalore 2.

2. The Asst. Provident Fund,

    Commissioner (Pension),

    S.R.O, Provident Fund Department,

    Court Road, 2^nd Floor, Tulunadu Towers,

    Udupi.

                                                                           …........OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 & No.2: 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 was working at KSRTCMangalore and worked continuously 16.3.2016 more than 20 years of continuous service and was paid monthly pension from 17.3.2016.   He was earlier opted to Family Pension Scheme that effect from 1.6.1971 and there wasmonthly deduction towards the contribution of the said scheme was replaced by Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 which effect from 15.11.1995 and his pension was fixed at Rs.2,163and is credit to his bank account. He was not given 2 years weightage by opposite parties under the new scheme.Opposite party contended that he cannot be given the benefit under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and the view is incorrectand that the Supreme Court observation in the Civil Appeal No. 30844/2010 matter is kept open is entitled for benefit under para 10 (2) of Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995as defined in para 12(3.5) (a) and 12(3.5) (b) of the scheme and also claims relief benefit under para 32 and as such seeks reliefs claimed in the complaint.

2.     Opposite party No.1 in the version claims the complainant is resident of Kundapur, Udupi District coming within the jurisdiction of the opposite party No.2 who maintained the pension records of complainant and this Forum has not Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He also claims there is no deficiency in service hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.

3.     Subsequent of filing of the petition and version on 27.4.2017 on behalf of opposite party a memo was filed mentioning that the pension of the complainant was revised by extending the benefit of weightage of 2 years on 29.12.2016 and as this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and seeks dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Both the parties not filed affidavit evidence.

5.      In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

We have considered entire case file on record.   Our findings on the points are as under follows:

               Point No. (i)  : Negative

               Point No. (ii) : Negative

              Point No.(iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

6.     POINT NOS. (i)& (ii):The learned counsel for complainant on 12.6.17 acknowledge the extending of benefit by opposite party to the complainant and as such sought to order for compensation.

7.     There is no dispute as to the claim, relationship between the parties and the lis between the parties as consumer and service provider. The benefit under para 10(2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 admits extending of benefit to complainant as per memo filed on benefit of opposite party on 27.4.2017.

8.     Considering that the complainant even as stated in the complaint is assessing and the relevant authority to fix their pay pension being opposite party No.2 is the jurisdiction of Udupi.   Mere mentioning opposite party No.1 Office of Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) at Mangalore, complainantcannot seek extensions of his territorial jurisdiction to this Forum.  As such we are of the viewfiling the complaint by complainant before this Forum is without any territorial jurisdiction.   Hence on this scope the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.

9.     In any case the prayer of complainant for re-fixing under para 10(2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 by opposite party No.2 is already revised.   As this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdictionto the question of considering other prayers by complainantas this Forumdoes not have jurisdiction and hence complaint isdeserved to be rejected. Hence we answered points No.1 and No.2 in the negative.

10.POINTS No. (iii):Wherefore the following

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. 

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 the13^thJune 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:

 Nil 

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

 Nil 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Dated: 13.06.2017:                   PRESIDENT