CC Filed on 02.03.2009 Disposed on 14.07.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 14th day of July 2009 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 14/2009 Between: C. Mallesh, S/o. Changappa, No. 545, Bambaoo Bazar, Kolar. .Complainant V/S 1. Assistant PF Commissioner (Pension) Employees PF Office, Laxmi Complex, NH-4, Old Madras Road, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore 560 036. 2. Divisional Controller, KSRTC., Kolar. (By Advocate Sri. K. Narasimhagowda & Others) .Opposite Parties ORDERS This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party No.1 to fix the pensions from the date of his retirement i.e. 25.06.2007 instead of the pensions now granted with effect from 27.06.2008 and further to pay commutation amount to the extent of 1/3 of the normal pension with costs, interest, etc., 2. The material facts of the case may be stated as follows: The complainant was working as Security Guard under OP.2 from 21.11.1981. He was permitted to retire from service with effect from 25.06.2007 on medical ground on his request for voluntary retirement. His date of birth is 10.03.1954. The complainant was a member for Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 with EPF Account No. KN/989P/2756 maintained by OP.1. The complainant was contributing certain amount towards employees pension fund during his service. He was entitled to the benefits as provided in paras 12, 12A and 13 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 on his retirement. The complainant has submitted his application for reduced pension and other benefits to OP.1. The said application was received in the office of OP.1 27.06.2008. After processing the said application pension payment order was prepared on 16.12.2008 vide PPO No. KN/KRP/14304 and the same was intimated to complainant and the amount payable is being credited to the S.B. Account of complainant maintained in Canara Bank, Kolar, M.B. Road as desired by him. OP.1 has fixed the original pension at Rs.1,285/- per month with effect from 27.06.2008. No amount towards commutation was granted under para 12 A as the complainant had not opted for commutation of the pension and it was assumed that option for return of capital as per para 13 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1955 was not exercised. 3. The grievance of the complainant is that though he retired with effect from 25.06.2007, the pension payable was fixed with effect from 27.06.2008 and he should have been granted pension from the date of his retirement and further that he was entitled to commutation value of his pension to the extent of 1/3 of the pension and the said commutation value was not paid to him. He alleged that he made representations to OPs, but they did not respond. Therefore, he filed the present complaint. The complainant has filed this complaint in person. Instead of saying commutation value he has wrongly stated it as a loan payable to pensioner in his complaint. 4. The OPs appeared and filed their version. OP.1 has contended that as per the particulars mentioned in application for monthly pension in Form No. 10-D (EPS) the pension has been sanctioned, as per the provisions contained in Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Further it is contended by OP.1 that in Form 10 D under column 8a the complainant has not mentioned the date of commencement of the reduced pension and in view of a subsequent circular dated 07.09.2007, in absence of any option date, the date of receipt of claim application was taken as the option date for payment of reduced pension. Further it is contended by OP.1 that commutation of pension was not opted by complainant as per column 9 in his application. During the arguments it is submitted by OP.1 that option for return of capital was not considered as per column 10 of his application, as the complainant has not stated the option for return of capital by marking the appropriate column. Therefore it is contended that no mistake was committed by OP.1 in fixing the reduced pension at Rs.1,285/- with effect from 27.06.2008 on which date the application was received in the office of OP.1. 5. OP.2 has contended in his version that the complainant himself has filled up Form 10 D for claiming reduced pension and there was no deficiency in service by him and that the complainant has not claimed commutation of pension and he had not opted for return of capital. Therefore it is contended that the complaint against OP.2 may be dismissed with costs. 6. This complainant filed affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. OP.1 submitted that he has no oral evidence. OP.2 has filed affidavit in support of his contention. 7. We heard the arguments and perused the records. 8. The application for monthly pension in Form 10 D submitted by complainant shows that in column 8a the date of commencement of reduced pension was not indicated and in column 9 option for commutation of 1/3 quantum of pension was not opted and in column 10 option for return of capital was not properly indicated. Therefore, in the present status of the particulars furnished by complainant in his pension application, we think the pension fixed at OPs Rs.1,285/- with effect from 27.06.2008 is valid and legal and in consideration of commutation of pension as well as return of capital are also valid and legal. 9. The complainant submitted that the concerned Clerk in the office of OP.2 had merely asked the complainant to sign the blank pension form, but at the time of putting signature on the pension form he had stated that he wanted pension from the date of voluntary retirement and he would opt for 1/3 quantum of pension towards commutation, but the said Clerk has not mentioned any date in column 8a and has wrongly noted in the application for pension that he was not opting for commutation. Therefore he submitted that his request may be considered now. The Officer of OP.2 who was present during the arguments admitted that the form claiming pension was filled up by the Clerk Hanumanthu, who was looking after the concerned section. Therefore we cannot believe the written version of OP.2 that the pension form was not at all filled up by any of the Officers of OP.2. The obvious mistakes in filling column 8a and 10 clearly establish that the said Clerk had not at all taken any instruction from complainant before filling up the pension form or he has incorrectly filled up the said pension form. 10. The date from which the reduced pension is to be granted is governed by sub para 7 of para 12 of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 R/W column 8a of Form 10 D for application for monthly pension. From this it is clear that the date of submission of pension application or some future date may be mentioned in this column for the commencement of reduced pension. As already noted the application for pension is not dated. However it is received in the office of OP.1 on 27.06.2008. Therefore, we think that the pension application was prepared in office of OP.2 a few days earlier to 27.06.2008. Therefore we think the claim for pension from the date of voluntary retirement cannot be considered. 11. The representation made by complainant claiming commutation amount makes it clear that always he intended to claim commutation amount. The mistake must have been made by the person who filled up the application for pension in not exercising the option for commutation. 12. The provision for grant of commutation of pension is stated in para 12 A which is as follows: A member eligible to pension may, in lieu of pension normally admissible under paragraph 12, opt on completion of three years from the commencement of this Scheme, to commute upto a maximum of one-third of his pension so as to receive hundred times the monthly pension so commuted as commuted value of pension. Balance pension will be paid on monthly basis as per option exercise under paragraph 13. Explanation -- If for example, the normal pension under paragraph 12 is Rs.600, and the pensioner opts to commute one third of his monthly pension, the commuted value will be equal to 1/3 x 600 x 100 = Rs.20,000 and the same shall be paid at the time of exercise of option of commutation. The balance of pension payable on monthly basis is Rs.400.00) 13. As on the date of voluntary retirement the complainant was aged 53 years. Even as on today he is aged 55 years. We found no provision under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 barring a pensioner to claim commutation of 1/3 pension before he attains the age of 58 years. Under the said pension scheme a person retiring earlier to the age 58 years can claim pension from the date of he attaining 58 years. Therefore we think the request of the complainant in the present facts and circumstances of the case for commutation 1/3 pension may be considered for the present, even though he had not exercised the said option earlier at the time of filing application for pension. 14. Hence we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed. OP.1 or such other concerned Officer shall grant commutation value of 1/3 pension to complainant within 45 days from the date of this order and balance monthly pension may be paid to him for the subsequent period. OP.2 shall pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to complainant. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 14th day of July 2009. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
