Karnataka

Kolar

CC/135/2023

Smt.S.Vedhavathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Commissioner, EPFO - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.D.V.Laxminarayana

25 Mar 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 26/10/2023

Date of Order:25/03/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:25^th DAY OF MARCH 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:135/2023

 

Smt. S. Vedhavathi.

C/o. S.K. Murthy,

Aged about 63 years, No.1615,

Vijayanagar 1^st Cross,

Bangarpet Town,

Kolar.

(Rep.by D.V. Laxinarayana, Advocate)           ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

Assistant Commissioner(Pension)

Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Dooravani Nagar,

NFU Block, ITI Campus, F-28,

K.R. Puram,

Bangalore-16.

(Rep. by Smt.Vimala.C, Advocate)  ……Opposite Party.

 

-: ORDER:-

BYSRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complainant filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against OP and praying for directions to the OP to grant weightage as per the section 10(2) with the Provident Fund Act as per section 7(q) the weightage is to be consider from 15/02/2019 along with interest @ 12% P.a and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.4,000/- towards  cost of the proceedings.

 

2. The brief facts of the case is that, the complainant served more than 22 years 3 months 14 days and during her service she had contributed the amount to her PF account bearing No.PYKRP0004301 and 0019540/000/0000011and the PF amount deducted from her salary.  It is stated that, complainant was served in her institution since from 01/11/1996 to 14/02/2019 and served about 22 years, 3 months, 14 days.  It is stated that, in case of member who attains superannuation on attaining age of 58 years and who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more than his pensionable service shall be increased by a weightage of 2 years, but OP fixed monthly pension for Rs.2,734/-. It is stated that, complainant given representation on 01/08/2023 and also got issued legal notice to the OP claiming weightage of 2 years against the service rendered by the complainant, but the OP denied the claim of the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

 

3. Upon admission of complaint and on issuance of notice, OP appeared through his counsel and filed its version.  In the version it is contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in the eye of law or on facts.  Since the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as defined in the act. 

 

4. Further contended that, claimant for weightage attaining pension as per the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and if there is any variation/difference/shortage, the same can beadjudicated by the OP in the provision of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 which provides for necessary machinery to adjudicate the dispute.

 

5. Further OP submits that, complainant is retired employee of M/s BangarpetTaluk Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank,Bangarpet and retired from the service on 14/02/2019.  Further pension has commenced from 15/02/2019 (at the age of 58 years) it is contended that, complainant being not satisfied with the quantum of pension paid by the institution and thereon, complaint before this Commission claiming revision of pension with reference to 12 and Para 10(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.

 

6. Further contended that, complainant is misleading the Hon’ble Commission by saying that, the pension calculation is lesser than the amount entitled.  Further contended that, complainant as made false statement stating that, she has given representation to the OPfor the revised of the monthly pension.  It is also contended that, OP has been paying pension regularly a sum of Rs.2,734/- under Para 12(1)(a), 12(3) & 10(2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 per month being monthly member pension as per the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  It is contended that, the pension proceeds have been credited to the SB account No.0485101037919 maintained with Canara Bank Bangarpet. 

 

7. Further contended that, the pension is calculated in connection withDate of birth, date of joining, date of leaving (retired from the service) pensionable salary and date of commencement of the pension.  Hence contended that, pension is fixed as per the eligibility i.e., the sum of Rs.2,734/- under Para 12(1)(a), 12(3) & 10(2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  Further contended that, as per the provision in respect of superannuation pension case of the complainant the calculation arrived as per applying the formula and norms of the pension scheme act 1995 the total pension payable to the complainant case to Rs.2,734/-.

 

8. Further contended that, the complainant has been granted superannuation pension, she has entitled for weightage of 2 years on pensionable service in compliance with Para 10(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  Further contended that, they have considered by increasing complainant’s pensionable service by adding weightage of 2 years.

 

9. It is contended that, the pension of complainant has been regulated as per para 12.1(a), 12(3) and 10(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  It is contended further, OP has correctly calculated monthly member pension of the complainant.  

 

10. On the above said grounds OP submits that, they have not committed any deficiency in service and finally pray to reject the claim of the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

 

11. In order to prove the case of the parties and both parties filed their affidavit evidence.

 

12. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, that the OP by not giving  2 years weightage as per the scheme of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and thereby committed deficiency in service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What Order?

 

We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the evidence placed on record.

Our answers to the above points as under:

Point No.(1)& (2):-In the Negative.

 

Point No.(3):-As per the final orders

for the following

5299419885.  

 

13. Point No.(1)&(2):-On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake brevity these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

14. On perusing the pleading of the parties it is not in dispute that, the complainant was served in the M/s BangarpetTaluk Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank and joined service on 01/11/1996 and retired from the service on 14/02/2019.  It is also not in dispute that, the complainant is contributed towards her PF account from her salary during her service. 

 

15. It is only the grievance of the complainant is that, OP is not given the 2 years of weightage as per the Employees Pension Scheme Act 1995 and which leads to filing of this Complaint.

 

Per contra, OP denies the allegations of the complainant and contended that, they have calculated the pension by giving 2 years of weightage as per the Norms of the Employees Pension Scheme Act 1995.  Further during the course of arguments, counsel for the OP submits that, they have not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

16. It is worth to note that, the OP contended that, the provisions of the fixing the pension is calculatedby considering the Date of birth, Date of joining, Date of leaving (retired from the service) pensionable salary and date of commencement of the pension, they have calculated the pension by giving the weightage as per section 12(1)(a), 12(3) and 10(2) of EPS Act 1995 and the pension is granted for complainant to an extent of Rs.2,734/-. It is the contention of the OP to ensured the quantum of pension eligible for the complainant by applying the formula monthly member pension at Para 12, monthly members pension = (Pensionable salaryX Pensionable service)/ 70, further the OP calculated the services of the complainant in 2 parts i.e., past service benefit (A) the formula applied is monthly members pension = (Pensionable salary X Pensionable service) / 70.  It is taken in to consideration service up to 31/08/2014 = (6505 + 730) X 6500 / 70 x 365 = 1,841/-.  It is made it clear that for 6505 days is pensionable service prior to 31/08/2014 and 730 days is 2 years weightage. 

 

17. It is noteworthy to mention that, on revised of the salary of the complainant for the sake of calculation they calculated the pensionable service in 2 parts i.e., part (a) as calculated above and part (b) 4 years 5 months and 14 days on applying formula i.e., =1629 x14,008 / 70x365 = 893/- note for 1629 days is pensionable from 01/09/2014. i.e., total pensionable payable to the complainant as calculated above i.e., A+B = Rs.1,841 + Rs.893/- = 2,734/-.  Whereas, though in the version of OP clearly calculated the pensionand as per the said formula provided in the act but the complainant did not given any cogent evidence to falsify the calculation given by the OP.

 

18. Further we have carefully gone through the calculation made by the OP on the basis of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and we find that, the calculation arrived by the OP in two parts as stated supra we find no wrong committed by the OP while fixing the pension of the complainant by considering the 2 years weightage.Hence the complainant herself misconstrued the calculation arrived by the Op. Further OP being the Public Institution and only acting as per the Scheme of the Act and thereby we reached to conclusion that, complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP and hence complainant is not entitled to any relief as sought in the complaint.  Accordingly we answered the Point No.(1) & (2) in the negative.

 

19. Point No. (3):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No.(1)&(2) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:
6698606.  

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.  No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

    (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 25^th DAY OF MARCH 2024)

 

 

        MEMBER            PRESIDENT