BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31st day of August, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.89/2009

Between

Complainant : Jayapaul H/o Yesumani,

W.P Division,

Karadikuzhi Estate, Karadikuzhi P.O,

Peerumedu – 685 531,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Santhosh Jacob)

And

Opposite Party : The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,

Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

Sub Regional Office,

CMS College Road,

Kottayam.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

Wife of the complainant named “Yesumani” was an employee of the Karadikuzhy Estate owned by Hyland Produce Company Limited. A limited amount was paying in the provident fund from the wages of the said “Yesumani” from the estate office. She was retired from service on 31/03/2007 due to disease and she died on 27/06/2008 due to the disease. Complainant applied for widower pension after the death of his wife to Karadikuzhi estate on 24/02/2009. Application was forwarded to the Provident Fund Office with relevant documents from Karadikuzhi estate. The said application was rejected from the office stating that she was not the member of the Employees' Pension fund Scheme 1995. The complainant is entitled to get the monthly pension of Rs.600/- and so the petition is filed.

2. As per written version of the opposite party, late member Yesumani was an employee of Karadikuzhi estate. Her provident fund Account No. is KR/142/95. The member joined in provident fund scheme on 01/06/1967 and left service on 31/03/2007 after attained aged of 58. She died on 27/06/2008. Her provident fund accounts were settled on 12/03/2009 as per para 70(ii) of the Employees provident Fund Scheme 1952 that is, as per Family membership Certificate Rs.55,182/- each was credited to the bank account of Sri.Jayapaul, the petitioner and Jayaret the daughter of the deceased. Now the petitioner claimed for widower pension,

subject to sub-para 3 of para 1, the scheme shall apply to every employee

(d) who has been a member of the Employees' provident Fund or of Provident Funds of factories and other establishments exempted by the appropriate Government under Section 17 of the Act or in whose case exemption has been granted under paragraph 27 or 27A of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, on 15^th November, 1995, but not being a member of the ceased Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 opts to exercise his option under paragraph 7.

 

In short, the Scheme shall apply to every employee who has been a member of the Employees' Provident Fund on 15/11/1995, but not being a member of the ceased Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 opts to exercise his option by remitting the past period contribution with interest thereon under para 7(3) and 17(3) of the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995. In this case the petitioner had not exercised her option to become the member of Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971/Employees Pension Scheme 1995 during her life time. From Form 1, it is explicitly clear that she had not opted for the Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971, but she had opted to continue under the existing Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952.

Hence claimant is not entitled to get the pensionery benefits. However amount received erroneously has to be refunded to the claimant. The member died after leaving the service.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 marked on the side of the complainant and no oral evidence adduced from the part of opposite party.
 

5. The POINT:- The complainant's wife was an employee of the Karadikuzhy estate, she resigned from service due to illness and there after she expired on 27/06/2008. So the complainant is entitled to get the widower pension. The complainant is examined as PW1, Ext.P1 is the application for monthly pension as per Employees Pension Scheme 1995. All the relevant documents for getting the family pension were send to the Provident Fund Officer. Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 are the details of service. The death certificate of the wife of the petitioner is marked as Ext.P4. The application and all the documents were rejected from the provident fund office stating that “the deceased is not a member of the Employees pension scheme 1995”. So not eligible for monthly pension. The copy of the letter is marked as Ext.P6. As per written version of the opposite party, the member joined Provident Fund Scheme on 01/06/1967. Her provident fund account was settled on 12/03/2009. Rs.55,182/- each credited to the bank account of Sri.Jayapaul the petitioner and Jayaret the daughter of the deceased. To every employee who has been a member of the Employees Provident fund on 15/11/1995, but not being a member of the ceased Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 opts to exercise his option by remitting the past period contribution with interest thereon under para 7(3) and 17(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. In this case the petitioner had not exercised her option to become the member of Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971/Employees pension scheme 1995 during her life time. But it is written that the petitioners wife left service after attained the age of 58. So some mistake happened to opposite party because Ext.P7 the Election Identity card of the Yesumani shows that she is 37 years old on 01/01/1998. The opposite party also produced the Form 1 of the option form, of the petitioner's wife. In which it is written that “I do not opt for Family Pension-cum-Life Assurance, benefits for Employees' Provident Fund”. It is also written that “I opt to continue under the existing Employees' Provident Fund benefits as they stood before the amendment of the Employees Provident Fund Act”. So we think that the complainant's wife failed to exercise the option for Family pension. The provident fund account of the petitioner's wife were settled on 12/03/2009 by disbursing Rs.55,182/- each to the petitioner and to their daughter Jayaret. So no deficiency is seen from the part of the opposite party.

Hence the petition dismissed. But the complainant can give a representation before the opposite party through the employer of the petitioner's wife for reconsidering the application for widower pension, to ascertain whether there is any mistake happened to the opposite party while considering the previous application.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2009
 

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
 

Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - P. Jayapaul

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Application for Monthly Pension

Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Details showing the Pension Membership

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Details showing the Service

Ext.P4 - True copy of Death Certificate of the wife of the complainant

Ext.P5 - True copy of Family Membership Certificate

Ext.P6 - Photocopy of opposite party's rejection memo dated 25.03.2009

Ext.P7 - Photocopy of Election Identity Card of Yesumani

On the side of Opposite Party:

Nil