Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1690/2017

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anjappa Chetty - Opp.Party(s)

Nalini Venkatesh

09 Feb 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :07.08.2017

Date of Disposal :09.02.2023

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:09.02.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH: PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL Nos.1687/2017 to 1697/2017

 

 

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan

Regional Office

No.13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road

Post Box No.25146

Bengaluru-560 025                                                       Appellant

(By Mrs Nalini Venkatesh, Advocate)

(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)

 

      -Versus-

 

1. Appeal No.1687/2017

     Mr Manjunath
     Aged about 63 years,
     No.7, New No.13, 7th Cross,
     Swimming Pool Extension,
     Malleshwaram,
     Bengaluru – 560003                                               Respondent
 

2. Appeal No.1688/2017

     Mr V S Somanath Rao
     S/o Mr V Suryanarayana Rao,
     Aged about 62 years,
     R/at No.418/A, Kumarakrupa,
     12th Main Road, 1st Block,
     Manjunathanagar,
     Bengaluru – 560010                                              Respondent

3.  Appeal No.1689/2017

     Mr S B Wannur
     Aged about 74 years,
     R/at No.1776/B, IV Cross,
     10th & 11th Main, Prakashnagar,
     Bengaluru – 560021                                             Respondent
                                                         

4.Appeal No.1690/2017

     Mr Anjappa Chetty
     S/o Mr Govindappa,
     Aged about 61 years,
     R/at No.1080,

     BTM 1st Stage,
     14th Main, 7th Cross,
     Tavarekere,
     Benagaluru – 560029                                          Respondent
     (By Sri S S Nagaraj, Advocate)

 

5.Appeal No.1691/2017

     Mr Govinda Raju H K,
     S/o Mr Hanumantharayappa,
     Aged about 61 years,
     Kadabagere Post,
     Tavarekere,
     Bengaluru – 562130                                          Respondent
 

6. Appeal No.1692/2017

     Mr T R Viswanatha
     Aged about 68 years,
     R/at No.810, 3rd Stage,
     BEML Layout,
     Rajeshwarinagar,
     Bengaluru – 560098                                                  Respondent

7. Appeal No.1693/2017

     Mr Nataraju
     Aged about 72 years,
     No.524, Shivakrupa,

     I C Cross, 3rd Stage,

     4th Block, Basaveshwarnagar,
     Bengaluru – 560079                                                   Respondent
 

8. Appeal No.1694/2017

     Mr Ashok S Bentur
     S/o Mr SanammallappaBentur,
     H No1303, I Phase,

     V Main, V Cross,

     Rajarajeswarinagar,
     Bengaluru – 560050                                                Respondent


9. Appeal No.1695/2017

     Mr Lingachary M,
     S/o Mr Mallachari,
     Aged about 62 years,
     No.85, III Main Road,
     Sanjeevini Nagar,

     Mudalpalya,
     Bengaluru.                                                                Respondent
     (By Sri S S Nagaraj, Advocate)

 

10. Appeal No.1696/2017

      Mr G S Shivaram
      S/o Mr Siddaramaiah
      Aged about 62 years,
      No.35, Sri Madhu Nivas,
      4th Cross, Kalidasa Layout,
      Srinagar, Bengaluru – 560050                                 Respondent

11. Appeal No.1697/2017

      Mr Thimmarayappa B
      S/o Late Beerappa
      Aged about 61 years,
      10th A Main, 11th Cross,
      33rd Division, Viratnagar,
      Bommanahalli,
      Bengaluru – 560068                                                Respondent

         

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by OP aggrieved by the Order dated 30.11.2016 passed in Complaint Nos.2482/2013, 2483/2013, 2487/2013, 2489/2013, 2496/2013, 2495/2013, 2499/2013, 2512/2013, 2514/2013, 2520/2013 and 2500/2013 respectively on the file of IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels for Appellant and Respondents in Appeal Nos.1990/2017 and 1995/2017. It is observed that Notice on Respondents has not been returned in the following cases and also the fact that no step has been taken by the Appellant in Appeal Nos.1687 to 1689/2017, 1691 to 1694/2017, 1696/2017 and 1697/2017, taking into consideration, the vintage of the cases and age of the Respondents, yet again, as a special case, the service of notice in the above cases has been dispensed with to avoid further delay.

3.       At the outset, let us examine whether the Complainants are entitled for re-fixation of pension by adding 2 years of weightage and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP?

4.       In this regard, we also take note of the following service particulars details of each of the Complainants on record, as hereunder:

Appeal No.

Complaint

No.

 

 

Date

of Birth

Date of retirement

Past Service

Actual service

 

Age on Retirement

1687/2017

2482/2013

15.06.1950

28.02.2001

23

5

51

1688/2017

2483/2013

22.10.1951

21.10.2009

14

13

58

1689/2017

2487/2013

 01.05.1939

30.04.1997

19

1

58

1690/2017

2489/2013

01.06.1952

31.05.2010

17

14

58

1691/2017

2496/2013

12.02.1952

11.02.2010

18

13

58

1692/2017

2495/2013

17.11.1945

30.11.2002

21

07

58

1693/2017

2499/2013

09.01.1941

08.01.1999

19

03

58

1694/2017

2512/2013

08.09.1943

31.01.2001

18

5

58

1695/2017

2514/2013

15.08.1951

14.08.2009

18

13

58

1696/2017

2520/2013

10.12.1951

09.12.2009

08

14

58

1697/2017

2500/2013

08.06.1952

07.06.2010

12

14

58

 

On Perusal of contents of the Table, it reveals that the Complainants in Appeal Nos.1687/2017, 1689/2017, 1692/2017 to 1694/2017 retired before 24.07.2009 and complied either of the condition of Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995, while Complainants in Appeal Nos.1688/2027, 1690/2017, 1691/2017, 1695/2017 to 1697/2017 retired after 24.07.2009 and complied with both the conditions of Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995.  Hence, all the Complainants are entitled for the weightage of two years. With regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension, it is observed that the Complainants in Appeal Nos.1687/2017, 1689/2017, 1692/2017 to 1694/2017 retired from their service before 15.06.2007 and in Appeal Nos.1688/2017, 1690/2017, 1691/2017and 1695/2017 to 1697/2017 retired from their service after 15.06.2007 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before and after 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995.

 

5.       Thus, it is not in dispute that Respondent/Complainant in each of the case, during their service they joined the Employees PF Scheme; contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and continued to contribute subsequently to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995. It is also not in dispute that Appellant/OP revised the Pension and released the arrears to the complainants. On perusal of details of calculation of Pension produced by the Appellant, it is observed that they paid the arrears of Pension amount belatedly and that too after the Complainant raising their grievances.  It is pertinent to note from the document No.5 annexed to the Appeal Memorandum, it is not clear as to on which date they paid the arrears of pension to Pensioners.  Thus, in our considered opinion, certainly this act of Appellant amounts to deficiency in service.  In the circumstances, the Impugned Order directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to each of the Complainant is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference. The delay between 212 and 219 days in filing of all these Appeals by the Appellant is hereby condoned by considering the reasons assigned in Affidavit filed in support of the IA.

6.       With the foregoing observations, the Appeal Nos. 1687/2017 to 1697/2017 stands Dismissed.

 

7.       The statutory deposits in all these Appeals is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

*

8.       Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.1687/2017 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.

9.       Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

         

                                                                    President           

*s

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.