DOF. 10 / 10 /05 DOO. 2/ 7 /10 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 2nd day of July 2010 C.C.No.254/2005 P.T.Mary, ‘Ayillikunnel House,, P.O.Chettiamparamba, Kannur Dist. Complainant (Rep. by Adv.John Joseph) 1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund organization, Regional Office, 8th 9th floor, Mayoor Bhavan, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi 1. 2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPF Organisation, V.K.Complex, Fort Road, Kannur 3. The Secretary, Board of Trustees, EPF, State Farms Corporation of India Ltd., 14, 15, Farms Bhavan, Nehru Palace, Opposite Parties New Delhi. (Rep. by Adv.V.C.Pramod Kumar) 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 1 & 2 to pay 12% interest on the entire pension arrears with effect from 23.12.03 on month to month basis till 7.2.09 and to pass a revised pension payment order for a sum of Rs.763/- with Rs.5000/- as compensation with cost. The case of the complainant is that she is a retired employee of Central State Farm, Aralam and the 1st opposite party is administering the EPF Account of the complainant. But after the retirement of employee the ownership has been changed and all records pertaining to EPF account has been transferred to 2nd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party was administering the EPF account of the complainant. The complainant retired from service on 5.4.01 and her EPF account is DL.3670/005678. The date of birth of the complainant is 5.3.1950 and is entitled to get reduced pension through employer in the month of August 2001. Even though the complainant submitted application for reduced pension, through employer during August 2001, the said application was returned twice. The reason for the initial return of application form was that the complainant did not include the names of her entire family members. The complainant re-submitted after curing the defect. But it was again returned for want of age proof certificate in respect of her children and the complainant again resubmit as per the direction of 1st opposite party. But on 7.3.05, the 3rd opposite party informed the complainant that her pension cannot be considered as the employer has not forwarded the details regarding EPF subscripion during 1983-84 and 87-88. But the opposite party did not have made such an objection at the time of earlier returns. The employer of the complainant is an exempted establishment pertaining the same function as 1st and 2nd opposite parties and 3rd opposite party is under jurisdiction of 1st opposite party and 1st opposite party could have very well demand the above particulars, if any required for disbursement of pension. So the complainant sent a registered lawyer notice dt.24.6.05 with copy to 3rd opposite party requesting them to take immediate steps for disbursement of pension. But the opposite parties have neither taken any steps nor issued reply so there is grave negligence on the part of 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party miserably failed to perform his obligatory function. The complainant suffered much mental pain and agony due to inaction on the part of 1st opposite party. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving the notice from the Forum opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared and fled their version. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version with the following contentions. According to them, the complaint has failed to furnish the duly completed pension claim Form 10D along with the requisite documents i.e. age proof of her children, till date and due to this the pension claim for the complainant could not be processed and hence her claim was returned. The pension claim form 10 D of the complainant was received in the office of the 1st opposite party on 24.12.03 and initiated prompt action to settle the monthly pension, but it could not settle for want of requisite information, like age proof of children and family details of the complainant and hence the claim application was returned. The 3rd opposite party be directed to furnish the details of the family pension fund contribution for the period 1983-84 to 1987-88 in respect of the complainant within the office of 1st opposite party, so that the pension claim of the complainant is processed in accordance with the E., P. Scheme 1995. Moreover, the details of family pension fund contribute for the period 1983-84 to 1987-88 and age proof in respect of the children of the complainant has not sofar been received and the absence of said information and documents, the pension claim of the complainant could not be processed and hence there is no delay on the part of opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3rd opposite party also filed version. The complainant was an employee of central state Farm, Aralam and retired from the service and on her retirement, her service particulars are forwarded to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, pension cell New Delhi, on 23.12.03 and on 30.6.04. Since all the particulars are furnished to 1st opposite party and hence they are liable for relief sought by the complainant. The pension is to be disbursed by the opposite parties 1 and 2. The 3rd opposite party is an unnecessary party to the proceeding and hence there is no negligence on the part of 3rd opposite party and hence the complaint against 3rd opposite party is liable to be dismissed. Later on while the complaint is pending before the Forum as per the representation made by 1st opposite party that, if the applicant will submit a fresh 10 D application, they will make necessary arrangements for processing and sanction the pension payment order. Accordingly the Forum directed the complaint to submit a fresh 10D application and after opposite party has sanctioned the pension payment order dt.17.2.09. Accordingly the complainant amended the complaint to the effect that the complainant received P.P.No.KR.KNR/29278 dt.17.2.09, sanctioning an amount of Rs.645/- with effect from 23.12.03. But the opposite parties did not sanction the interest on account of the inordinate delay of more than 5 years in withholding pension benefit on account of latches and omission of opposite parties. So the complainant is entitled to 12% interest on the entire pension arrears with effect from 22.3.03 and the opposite parties are responsible for the same. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.763/- as monthly pension. So it is just and necessary to issue a direction to the 2nd opposite party to pass revised pension payment order and to give 12% interest on the entire pension arrears. The opposite partiers 1 and 2 filed additional version stating that the pension of the complainant has been sanctioned only on 17.2.04 on fresh application submitted by the complainant as per direction of the Forum on 1.11.08. Even after repeated request of 1st opposite party on 25.5.06 and 13.9.06, the complainant failed to resubmit the form 10 D and only afresh application was submitted as per direction of the Forum. The contention of the complainant that she is entitled to get Rs.763/- per month is not correct. The complainant not disputed any of the particulars stated in pension payment order and unless there is any discrepancies, it is cent percent sure that the amount of pension arrived on that basis is correct. The date of birth of the complainant is on 30.5.50 and date of joining in EPF and date of exit from service is on 1.12.82 and 5.4.2001 respectively. So the past service of the complainant is 12 year 11 months and 14 days and the break in service is 4 months and hence she has past service of 13 years. Pensionable service is 5 years and pensionable salary is Rs.2, 226/- i.e. average salary for the last 12 months. So amount as per table under Para 12(2) admissible to the complainant who had 13 years of past service and salary of Rs.1460/- is Rs.95/-. Factor as per table B is 3.292. So the past service benefit is Rs.95 X 3.092 = Rs.313/-. The pension for the service between 16.11.95 and date of leaving i.e. 5.4.01 is Pension able salary X personable service 70 And hence Rs.159/- which is subject to a minimum of R.438/-. So the total pension payable is Rs.313/- + Rs.438 = Rs.751/-. Since the petitioner opted to receive pension before attaining 58 years of age, the pension has to be reduced by 3% each for very year short of 58 and hence the reduced pension of the complainant is Rs.645/-.Sothere is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A7 and B1 to B7. Issue Nos.1 to 3 The case of the complainant is that she is entitled to get pension as per the rate of Rs.763/- per month and also entitled is get 12% interest from 12.3.03 to the delay caused in processing the pension due to the deficiency on the part of opposite arties 1 and 2. In order to prove her case she has produced Ext.Ext.A1 letter issued by opposite party to the complaint on 7.3.05, A2 copy of the letter sent by the complainant on 24.6.05, A3 postal receipt dt.24.6.05, A4 copy of Form 10 D application dt.28.10.08, A5 letter by the complainant to 2nd opposite party on 1.11.08, A6 postal receipt dt.3.11.08 and A7 pension payment order passed by 2nd opposite party dt.17.2.09. In order to prove the contention of opposite party they also produced Ext. B 1 letter dt.16.1.04 by 1st opposite party to complainant. B2 letter dt.31.3.04 issued by 1st opposite party, B3 letter dt.25.5.06 by 2nd opposite party to complainant, B4. Copy of acknowledgement card, B5 letter by 2nd opposite party to complainant on 13.9.06, B6, acknowledgement card, B7 copy of pension payment order dt.16.2.09 issued infavour of the complainant So the main points to be decided in this case is whether these caused any delay in disbursing the family pension benefit to the complainant due to the deficiency of service of opposite party and whether the complainant is entitled to get any amount more than that of Rs.645/- per month as pension. As per section 17 A of employers pension scheme 1995, the claims complete in all respects submitted along with the requisite documents shall be settled the benefit amount paid to the beneficiaries within 30 days from the date of receipt by the commissioner. If there is any deficiency in the claim, the same shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt of such application. According to the complainant she had submitted 10 D application during August 2001 through the employer. But she has not produced any document to prove that she had already submitted 10 D application during August 2001. But the opposite party admitted that they have received the 10 D application only on 24.12.03 and immediately on receipt of the same, they initiated prompt action but it could not be settled due to want of requisite information and documents to prove the age of her children and family details of complainant and the same was returned with a letter dt.16.1.04 and that letter was produced before the Forum as Ext. B1. Letter on 7.3.05 i.e. as per ext.A1 opposite party was returned the 10 D form with a direction to furnish the details of the family pension Fund contributions for the period 1983-84 to 1987-88 with respect to the complainant. More over the opposite party has produced Ext. B1 to B 5 which proves that the opposite party has issued notice on different date such as 16.1.04, 31.3.04, 25.5.06, 13.9.06 etc. with a request to submit application in form D. But the complaint has not produced any evidence to show that she had resubmitted her application Form 10 D by rectifying the defect after its return. More over the complainant deposed before the Forum that “ Rm³ dn«-bÀsN-bvX-Xn-\p-ti-jT KÄ^n t]mbn-cp-¶p. s]³j³l-cPn sImSp-¯-ti-j-am-Wv KÄ^n t]mb-Xv. Bh-i-y-amb tcJ-I-fnà F¶p-]-dªv H¶pT cpT FXnÀI-£n-IÄ At]-£-Xn-cn-¨-b-¨-Xp-a-\-Ên-em-¡n-tbm? Fsâ ssIbn In-«n-bn-Ã. \m«n-en-Ãm-Xn-cp-¶Xp sImmWv 1DT 2DT FXnÀI-£n-IÄ Xn-cn-¨-b¨ lcPn In«m-Xn-cp-¶-Xp-F-¶p-]-d-ªm And-bn-Ã. From the above deposition also, the complaint is not sure that whether she has received the returned application form. More over the opposite party had sanctioned pension and disbursed it as per order dt 17.2.09 as per the new application by the complainant on 1.11.08 as per the direction of the Forum. So the complainant failed to establish that the delay in issuing pension payment order is due to any illegal act or deficiency of the opposite party. So we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party for the delay. Yet another question to be decided is with respect to the quantum of the pension. Even though the complainant contended that she is entitled to get Rs.763/- as pension she did not disputed the particulars stated in the pension payment order. More over it is seen that the calculation done by the opposite parties is correct The complainant is entitled to get Rs.751/- as monthly pension, if she had completed her service till she had attained age of 58. But she left service during 2001 April. So the pension has to be reduced by3% each for every year short of 58. So the reduced pension is Rs.645/-. So we are of the opinion that the calculation made by the opposite party is correct and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief prayed and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1 letter issued by opposite party to the complaint on 7.3.05 A2 copy of the letter sent by the complainant on 24.6.05 A3 postal receipt dt.24.6.05 A4 copy of Form 10 D application dt.28.10.08 A5 letter by the complainant to 2nd opposite party on 1.11.08 A6 postal receipt dt.3.11.08 A7 pension payment order passed by 2nd opposite party dt.17.2.09 Exhibits for the opposite parties B 1 letter dt.16.1.04 by 1st opposite party to complainant. B2 letter dt.31.3.04 issued by 1st opposite party B3 letter dt.25.5.06 by 2nd opposite party to complainant B4. Copy of acknowledgement card, B5 letter by 2nd opposite party to complainant on 13.9.06 B6, acknowledgement card B7 copy of pension payment order dt.16.2.09 issued infavour of the complainant Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
