BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                       

Dated this the 3^rd February 2017

PRESENT

  SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR                 : HON’BLE MEMBER

COMMON ORDERS IN

C.C.No.23/2014 AND C.C.No.24/2014

(Admitted on 17.01.2014)

In C.C.No.23/2014

Mr. Sathyananda B,

Aged 64 years,

S/o Krishnappa,

C/o Ganesh Kripa, 5.6.420/1,

K.R. Salian, Bhagavathi Nagar,

Kodialbail, Mangalore  575003.

IN C.C.No.24/2014

Mr. Sathish B,

Aged 65 years,

S/o Krishnappa B,

Residing at Aithappa Devadiga Compound,

Battagudda, Bejai,

Mangalore  575004.

                                                      ….. COMPLAINANTS

(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri KN)

VERSUS

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension)

Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

P.B. No.572, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan,

Highlands, Silva Road, Mangalore  575002.

                                                  …..........OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for the Opposite party: Sri JNR)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaints filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against opposite party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     Both the complaints are on identical grounds hence by this common order for both the cases are being disposed off.

     Both claimants were serving at Visveswaraya Iron and Steel Plan Bhadravathi with their service particulars as here under.

Both claimants contends as per para 10(2) of Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 in case of the member who superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years and/or who has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding

weightage of two years.  But in the case of complainant’s weightage of 2 years has not been taken into consideration as calculating in the monthly pension though they entitled for the same as they completed 20 years of service.   Hence seeks re-fixation of the pension and payment of the difference of the amount with interest as opposite party rejected the claim made through legal notice in both cases.

II.     Identical ground were urged in bout cases by opposite party in written version.  The ground urged are the particulars as to date of birth, and of joining date of service and retirement is admitted.  The complainant of CC No.23/2014 as on date of retirement was aged 55years, and of complainant in 24/2014 was aged 54 years dated 31.7.2001.   It is further claimed the claimants are to be paid pension from 2004 as per para 10(2) of Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 the complainants in both cases rendered attained the superannuated age of 58 years.   They claim after getting pension for 3 years are more the claim made by the complainants under para 10(2) of 1995 is misconceived.  The employee would be entitled for weightage of 2 years only in respect of those whose commencement pension of 58 years from the service conditions are not fulfilled in the case of both the complaints.   Hence seek dismissal of both cases.

2.  In support of the above Complaint No.23/2014 the complainant Mr. Sathyananda B filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him.  On behalf of the opposite party Mr. V Hussenappa (Rw1) Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Pension) also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.

       3. In support of the above Complaint No.24/2014 the complainant Mr. Sathish B filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him.  On behalf of the opposite party Mr. V Hussenappa (Rw1) Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Pension) also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.

III.     In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether there is consumer dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:         

                    Point No. (i): Affirmative

                            Point No. (ii): Affirmative           

                            Point No.(iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.      POINTS No. (i):    In both cases the complainants who are the persons of employees pensioners under the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 i.e. of opposite party is not in dispute. Hence the complainant as consumer and the opposite party as service provider is established. The claims of complainants for 2 years weightage on superannuated is disputed by opposite party. Hence there is a live dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2(1)(e) of C P Act.  Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINT NO.(ii):     In both case it is not in dispute that these complainants take voluntarily retirement much before attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years from service.  Let us consider the Rules 10(2) of Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 thus:

 In the case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years, and/or who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding a weightage of 2 years.

Ongoing through clause 10(2) of Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 it is clear that in respect of employees who retired after completing 20 years of service are also entitled for benefit under this provision as the word used in the above provision is attaining the age of 58 years, and/or who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more makes it very clear that in respect of employee who completed the 20 years of service or more benefit of 2 years weightage has to be given by opposite party irrespective of whether he retired on attaining 58 years of age.  Admittedly in respect of these two complaints such weightage is not given.   Hence it is clear there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party towards both the complaints.  Hence we answer Point No.2 in the affirmative.

POINTS No. (iv): Wherefore the following order

ORDER

     The Complaints CC. No. 23/14 and No.24/14 are allowed with cost.  Opposite party is directed in both cases to re-fix the pension by giving weightage of two years as in respect of the claimants contemplated under Rule 10 (2) of Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 within 60 days from the date of this order.  Opposite party shall also pay interest at the rate of 8% on the arrears due to the claimants from the date of the respective petitions till the date of payment.    

2.     Advocate fee fix at Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in each case.

Keep original of this order in CC.23/2014 and a copy thereof in CC.24/2014.

      Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 6 Dictated by president directly to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 3^rd February 2017)

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.23/2014

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Sathyananda B

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

 Nil 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

 Nil 

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.24/2014

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Sathish B

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

 Nil                                                 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

 Nil 

Dated:  03.2.2017                                         PRESIDENT