BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BAGALKOT

Date of Order : 25-09-2018

PRESENT

Smt K.Sharada  B.A.L.L.B (Spl)                 : Hon’ble President

Smt Sumangala. Hadli   B.A.Music           : Lady Member

COMMON ORDERS IN C.C.Nos

C.C.No. 12/2016, 123/2016 and CC 13/2017,

CC  No.53/2017, CC No.83/2017 and 105/2017.

Consumer Complaint No:  12/2016

                              Date of Admission: 23-01-2016

COMPLAINANT

1) Husainsab S/o. Chandasab Tidagundi,

Since deceased by his LR’s.

1A) Shaberabegum W/o. Husainsab Tidagundi,

Age: 65 Yrs, Occ: Household,

Age:40 Yrs, Occ: Pvt. Work,

Age: 38 Yrs, Occ: Household,

Age: 36 Yrs, Occ: Household,

R/o. Jayanagar, Badawane,

Near Halkatti Bangale, Kaladagi Road,

Bagalkot Tq Dist: Bagalkot.

Consumer Complaint No: 123/2016

                                  Date of Admission: 08-08-2016

COMPLAINANT

1) Nagayya S/o. Shivamurtayya Hiremath,

Age: 62 Years Occ : Rtd KSRTC Employee

R/o. At Post Kulageri Cross, Near I.B.,

Tq: Badami, Dist Bagalkot

Consumer Complaint No: 13/2017

Date of admission: 15-02-2017

COMPLAINANT

1) Shri. Kashimsab S/o. Moulasab Contractor,

Age: 61 Years Occ : Rtd KSRTC Employee

R/o. House No.936, Ward No.3,

Ilkal, Tq : Hunagund, Dist : Bagalkot.

Consumer Complaint No: 53/2017

                                    Date of admission :14-06-2017

COMPLAINANT

1) Shri. Ibrahim @ Ibrahimsab S/o. Rasulsab Ghodesawar,

Since deceased Rept. by his wife Dulahanabi W/o. Ibrahim @ Ibrahimsab Ghodesawar,

Age: 54 Years Occ : Household work,

R/o. Plot No.71/B/Zandagalli,

Bagalkot, Tq: and Dist : Bagalkot.

Consumer Complaint No: 83/2017

                                  Date of admission : 02-08-2016

COMPLAINANT

1) Shri. Datatreya S/o. Manohar Mahendrakar,

Age: 62 Years Occ : Rtd KSRTC Employee

R/o. Sector No.21, Plot No.10, Navanagar,

Bagalkot, Tq: Dist: Bagalkot.

Consumer Complaint No: 105/2017

                                  Date of admission: 25-10-2017

COMPLAINANT

Since deceased Rept by his wife,

Smt. Kamala W/o. Shivasiddappa Naduvinamani,

Age: 48 Years Occ: Household work,

R/o. Dodda Oni, Shirur,

Tq: Dist: Bagalkot.

(C.C.No 12/2016, CC 123/2016 and 13/2017, CC 53/2017, 83/2017, & CC 105/2017 By Shri B.K.Patil Advocate)

                                                 V/s. 

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub Regional Office,

          Sath Kacheri Road, Garaladinni Complex,

          2^nd Floor, Raichur-584102. 

(C.C.No 12/2016, CC 123/2016 and CC 13/2017, CC 53/2017, CC 83/2017 and CC 105/2017 By Smt. J.V. Badami/Shri. V.V. Antin, Advocate)

2) The Divisional Controller,

N.W.K.R.T.C. Bagalkot Division,

Divisional Office Navanagar

Bagalkot.

(Op No. 2 in CC 13/2017, C.C.No.105/2017 by K. V. Kerur, Advocate and CC 83/2017 by S.S.Dongare, Adv. CC 53/2017 By Shri. S.A. Kori, Advocate)

    3)  The Divisional Controller,

         NWKRTC Gadag Division,

         Divisional Office,

         Gadag,Tq: Dist. Gadag.

(O.P.2 in CC 123/2016 by Shri. K.V.Kerur, Advocate)

The General Manager,

Bagalkot Cement and Industries Ltd,

Bagalkot, Tq: Dist. Bagalkot

(Exparte, Op No 2 in C.C.No12/2016)

Special Officer Employees Provident Fund

organization office,

Near Aradhan Lodge,

Opp. Bus stand, Bagalkot-587101.

          (Absent O.P.No.3 in CC No.123/2016)

COMMON ORDER

      By Smt. Sharda K., President

All these cases are filed by the above complainants are filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (Herein after referred to as the “Act”) against the Opposite parties(in Short the Ops) for directing the Op No 1 to revise their monthly pension by extending the minimum assured benefit both in respect of past and present service with effect from the date of the retirement and to pay the arrears with 12% interest and also to give two years of weightage and also to give annual relief from Retirement till today and to pay the regular Monthly pension continuously etc.

        2) In all these cases involved a common question of law and fact these cases are taken together for disposal by passing a common order.

That the Complainants’ Counsel stated in the year 2015 and 2016, it came to the knowledge of the complainant’s through one of their colleagues that there are errors in the calculation of pension fixed to them. It also came to their knowledge that pension paid to them are lesser one that the Complainants are entitled. Immediately the Complainants have given representations to the Opposite party for the revision of the monthly pension but the Opposite party failed to comply the same.

It is further stated that, all the Complainants were working as employee under Op No 2 from different dates and while they were in service they were the members of “The Employees of Family Pension Scheme 1971” (for short 1971 Scheme)and making contribution towards the Scheme and later on “The Employees Pension Scheme 1995”(for Short”1995 Scheme”) was introduced and brought into force with effect from 16^th day November of 1995 which was compulsory one and after commencement of the said 1995 scheme all the complainants continued to be the members of the scheme by making monthly contribution and subsequently they retired from services. Op No1 which is common in all these cases is functioning under the “Employees provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act 1952 and fixed the monthly pension of all the complainants. But however now the complainants have came to know that the fixation of their pension is not in accordance with the scheme and they have not been given two years of weightage as per the 1995 scheme in spite of their repeated request and issuance of the notice and this amounts to deficiency in service and further it is also alleged that the Op No1 has not given the Annual Relief which is to be given under Paragraph 32 the 1995 scheme etc., and hence complainants have prayed for giving necessary direction to the Op No1 to pay the following reliefs:-

a) To revise the monthly pension by extending the minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service with effect from the date of the retirement of the complainants and to pay arrears with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

b) To revise the monthly pension by extending the weightage of two years with effect from the date of the retirement of the complainants and to pay arrears with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

c) To pay the arrears accumulated by the complainants till the date of filing the complaints including interest at the rate of 12%p.a.

d) To give annual relief from 2001 to till this financial year and to pay the arrears as per the memo of calculation with interest at 12% p.a.

e) Pass the order to continue to pay the monthly pension to the complainants as per the scheme in revised scale and also claimed such other and further reliefs.

f) Pass the order to pay cost of Rs 10,000/- and also to award the compensation towards mental Agony.

For the purpose of convenience we would like to incorporate the memo of calculation supplied by the complainants which is part of the complaint under Annexure –“A” which is as under;

Memo of Calculation in C.C.No. 12/2016

1. Calculation of the Pension for the Period from 15-11-1995 till the date of retirement (as per the paragraph No12 R/w 10(2):-

Rs. 5,000/- X 24 years Present Service+2 years weightage service

=Rs 1857/-.

2. Calculation of Pension for the past service (as per paragraph 12(5) (b) and Table B shown in the Employees’ pension scheme:-

Age of the complainant as on 15-11-1995 was 48 years.

58 years – 48 years = 10 years

Therefore factor shown in the Table B at the column “less than 10 years = 2.473 is applicable. Since the past service of Complainant is 22 years, multiplier 170 is applicable.

2.473 X 170 = 420.41/-.

As per the paragraph No12(5) r/w 10(2) of the Employees pension scheme 1995 pension shall be aggregate of the pension for the period from 16-11-1995 and the pension for the past service. Therefore the aggregate of the pension is as follows:-

Entitled pension amount Rs.2277.41/-

Paid amountRs. 1230/-

From 01/03/2005 to 01/12/2014 = Rs. 1047.41 X 117 months

= 122547+12% p.a i.e., Rs.10212.25

Rs 10212.25 X 09 years = 214457.25/-

122547+91910.25= 2,14,457.25/-.

          Memo of Calculation in C.C.No.123/2016

1. Calculation of the Pension for the Period from 15-11-1995 till the date of retirement (as per the paragraph No12 r/w 10 (2):-

Rs. 6,500/- X 18 years Present Service+2 years weightage service

=Rs. 1579/-

2. Calculation of Pension for the past service (as per paragraph 12(5) (b) and Table B shown in the Employees’ pension scheme:-

Age of the complainant as on 15-11-1995 was 45 years.

58 years – 43 years = 15 years

Therefore factor shown in the Table B at the column “less than 13 years = 3.983 is applicable. Since the past service of Complainant is 13 years, multiplier 105 is applicable.

3.983 x 105 = 418.21/-.

As per the paragraph No12(5) r/w 10(2) of the Employees pension scheme 1995 pension shall be aggregate of the pension for the period from 16-11-1995 and the pension for the past service. Therefore the aggregate of the pension is as follows:-

Rs 1579/- + 418 = 1997/-

Entitled pension is Rs. 1997/-

Paid amountRs 1713/-

Difference Amt.Rs 284/-

From 18-06-2010 to 18-06-2016 = Rs.284 X 72 months

=20448+12% p.a. i.e., Rs.1704

1704 X 06 years = 10224/-

20448+10224= 30,672/-

     Memo of Calculation in C.C.No.13/2017

1. Calculation of the Pension for the Period from 15-11-1995 till the date of retirement (as per the paragraph No12 r/w 10 (2):-

Rs.6500/- X 18 years Present Service+2 years weightage service

=Rs 1857/-

2. Calculation of Pension for the past service (as per paragraph 12(5) (b) and Table B shown in the Employees’ pension scheme:-

Age of the complainant as on 15-11-1995 was 39 years.

58 years – 39 years = 19 years

Therefore factor shown in the Table B at the column “less than 19 years = 5.810 is applicable. Since the past service of Complainant is 13 years, multiplier 95 is applicable.

5.810 x 95 = 552/-.

As per the paragraph No12(5) r/w 10(2) of the Employees pension scheme 1995 pension shall be aggregate of the pension for the period from 16-11-1995 and the pension for the past service. Therefore the aggregate of the pension is as follows:-

Rs 1857/- +552/-= 2409/-

Entitle pension is Rs. 2409/-

Paid amountRs 2024/-

Difference Amt.Rs. 385/-

From 05/05/2014 to 05/10/2016 = Rs. 385 X 29 months

= 11,165+12% p.a. i.e., Rs.130.41

930.41 X 02 years = 13,026/-

11,165+1861 = 13,026/-

Memo of Calculation in C.C.No.53/2017

1. Calculation of the Pension for the Period from 15-11-1995 till the date of retirement (as per the paragraph No12 r/w 10(2):-

Rs. 6,500/- X 11 years Present Service+2 years weightage service

2. Calculation of Pension for the past service(as per paragraph 12(5) (b) and Table B shown in the Employees’ pension scheme:-

Age of the complainant as on 15-11-1995 was 47 years.

58 years – 47 years = 11 years.

Therefore factor shown in the Table B at the column “less than 11 years 2.720 is applicable. Since the past service of complainant is 15 years, multiplier 105 is applicable.

2.720 X 105 = 286/-

As per the paragraph No12(5) r/w 10(2) of the Employees pension scheme 1995 pension shall be aggregate of the pension for the period from 16-11-1995 and the pension for the past service. Therefore the aggregate of the pension is as follows:-

Rs 1207/- + 286 = 1493/-

Entitled pension is Rs.1493/-

Paid amount isRs. 1307/-

Difference Amt. Rs.186/-

From 31/05/2006 to 30/03/2017 = Rs.186 X 130 months

24,180+12% p.a. i.e., Rs.2015/-

2015 X 11 years = 22165

24,180/-+22,165 = 46,345/-

Memo of Calculation in C.C.No 83/2017

1. Calculation of the Pension for the Period from 15-11-1995 till the date of retirement (as per the paragraph No12 r/w10(2):-

6,500/- X 18 years Present Service+2 years weightage service

=Rs 1857/-.

2. Calculation of Pension for the past service(as per paragraph 12(5) (b) and Table B shown in the Employees’ pension scheme:-

Age of the complainant as on 15-11-1995 was 39 years.

58 years – 39 years = 19 years.

Therefore factor shown in the Table B at the column “less than 19 years = 5.810 is applicable. Since the past service of complainant is 09 years, multiplier 80 is applicable.

5.810 x 80 = 456/-

As per the paragraph No12(5) r/w 10(2) of the Employees pension scheme 1995 pension shall be aggregate of the pension for the period from 16-11-1995 and the pension for the past service. Therefore the aggregate of the pension is as follows:-

Rs.1857+465 = 2322

Entitle pension amount Rs. 2322/-

Paid amountRs. 1941/-

From 25/02/2014 to 01/08/2017 = 381 X 42 Months

Rs 16,002/- + 12% interest p.a. i.e Rs 1333.50/-

Rs. 1333.50 X 03 years = Rs. 4000.50/-

Rs.16,002 + 4000 = Rs.20,002/-

Total Arrear = Rs.20,002/-.

Memo of Calculation in C.C.No.105/2017

1. Calculation of the Pension for the Period from 15-11-1995 till the date of retirement (as per the paragraph No12 r/w 10(2):-

6,500/- X 14 years Present Service+2 years weightage service

=Rs 1486/-

2. Calculation of Pension for the past service (as per paragraph 12(5) (b) and Table B shown in the Employees’ pension scheme:-

Age of the complainant as on 15-11-1995 was 44 years.

58 years – 44 years = 14 years.

Therefore factor shown in the Table B at the column “less than 14 years 3.621 is applicable. Since the past service of complainant is 08 years, multiplier 80 is applicable.

3.621 x 80 = 290/-.

As per the paragraph No12(5) r/w 10(2) of the Employees pension scheme 1995 pension shall be aggregate of the pension for the period from 16-11-1995 and the pension for the past service. Therefore the aggregate of the pension is as follows:-

Rs. 1486+ 290 = 1776/-

Entitled pension amount Rs.1776/-

Paid amount is Rs1481/-

Difference Amt. Rs. 295/-

Rs. 295 x 102 months (From 31/05/2009 to 01/11/2017)

= Rs.30090/+12% p.a. interest i.e. Rs.2507.5/-

Rs. 2507.5/- X 08 years = Rs.20060/-

Rs.30090+20060 = 50,150/-

       3) a)  Op No 1 is the main contesting party in all the cases, Op No 1 Counsel filed Vakalat and submitted orally all these cases filed appeal in the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore. But Opponent has not filed either appeal copy or Stay copy this Forum have to give sufficient time to opponent for produce the said copies then forum have to conclusion that op No. 1 Objection not filed and evidence taken as nil.

         3 b) Op No 2 state that the undisputed fact are that all the complainants were the employees of Op No 2 and during their employment they became the members of 1971 scheme and making contribution and after enforcement of 1995 scheme they continued to be the members by making the monthly contribution and now they have retired from service and Op No 1 has determined the pension payable to them. That after the retirement of the complainants from the services, the Op No 2 has submitted all necessary service particular of the complainant to the office of the Op No 1. Hence has prayed for the complaints against this Opponent may kindly be dismissed with cost.

         4.       Complainant has filed affidavit in lien of evidence and he has also produced some documents as per Annexure which are common and undisputed one therefore there is no need to go in-detail about the documents.

Heard arguments of both the sides.

5.       Now the points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief as is   

Sought for?

2. What Order?

Answers to the above Points:-

1. Affirmative.
2. As per final order.

R E A S O N S

6. Point No 1:-

In all the cases the opposite party is one and the same though the complainants are different from one case to the other. The subject matter, the question of law and facts involved are one and the same. In order to avoid repetition of the facts and reasons and also to save the time we have taken up all the complaints together for passing common order as follows:-

           That the Op No 1 has submitted orally all these cases filed appeal in the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore for the purpose of transfer of all these cases. But Opponent has not filed either appeal copy or Stay copy this Forum have to give sufficient time to opponent for produce the said copies then forum have to conclusion that Op No 1 Objection not filed and evidence taken as nil.

           First of all we have to consider as to whether the service given by op No 1 is a service as is defined U/sec 2(1)(o) of the Act and as to whether the complainants are the Consumers U/sec 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act. In this regard we would like to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2008 CTJ 563 (Between Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V/s Bhavani wherein it has been held as under;

“The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who has been made responsible for working of the Employees Pension Scheme,1995 is a Service giver within the meaning of section 2 (1)(o) of the consumer Protection Act and the Pensioner  availing his services comes squarely under the definition of “consumer” under its Section 2(1)(d)(ii)”. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that all the complainants are the Consumers U/Sec 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and the service given by the Op No 1 is a service U/Sec2(1)(o) of the Act.

         Further observed that, the period of limitation starts from the date on which the pensioners came to know that the pension that is being fixed/paid by the Op No 1 is erroneous. That means, when there is continuing wrong/recurring wrong, in such cases the cause of action starts from the date of knowledge not otherwise. When there is continuing wrong/recurring wrong, in such cases the cause of action starts from the date of knowledge. Therefore, the I.A. filed by the complainants in all the cases hereby allowed and we hold that there is no delay and question of limitation does not arise.

          No doubt those, the Complainants in all these cases are the former employees of KSRTC, Bagalkot Cement Co Ltd., and after serving the above for a good number of years who retired from the service on attaining their age of superannuation. While they are in service, provident fund amount was being deducted out of the salary of the Complainants.

The interpretation of Para 12(4) (a) and (b) and Para 12(4) of 1971 scheme was considered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in a case of K. Chennakesavalu V/s The Employee Provident Fund organization, Rep by its Commissioner, New Delhi and others in a case reported in ILR 2004 KAR 2859 and the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under;

 “In so for as past service in terms of Para 12 (4) (b) it provides for a minimum of Rs 600/- per month. It cannot be forgotten that Para 12 (4) (b) has to be read in the light of the main provision i.e.12 (4) itself. Para 12(4) provides for retirement benefits being equal to an aggregate of pension.”

     As per the Paragraph No.10(2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 , it is necessary to give two years of weightage to the members who supernature on attaining the age of 58 years and who has rendered more than 20 pensionable service or more.

   Further we noticed that, complainants in all the cases have put in more than 20 years of service and they are entitled for weightage of two years and the same not considered by the opposite party No 1.

          On scrutiny of the material evidence available on record, we find that, admittedly the complaints were the employees of the KSRTC and some are Cement Factory, now all are retired from service either on superannuation or voluntarily.

 In view of the above discussion, we hold that, the scheme 1995 is very clear and the law laid by the Hon’ble National commission and The Hon’ble state commission, Hon’ble District Forum judgments, at the same time the Hon’ble Supreme court of India also considered the same issue. However, we find that, the Op No 1 despite of holding many number of judgments in their hand forced these senior citizens i.e., National Consumer Disputes Redressal  commission New Delhi 2010 (3) CPR page No 45, Supreme court page 3828,AIR 2008 Supreme court page 2957, III 2013 CPJ 244 (NC), copy of State Commission judgments, New Delhi II (2014) CPJ Page No 570 (NC). I (2008) CPJ Page 306 (NC) Provident Fund Commissioner V/s Sulekha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, for that the op No 1 shall pay adequate compensation by way of interest. The Complainant is entitled for the interest on arrears at the rate of 12% p.a. in these cases the Hon’ble National Commission held that under the provision of the Employees pension Scheme 1995 it is mandatory to impose interest at the rate of 12% p.a. By considering the age of the Complainants and also the inconvenience caused to them for all these years, we hereby directed the Op No 1 as follows:-

The Op No 1 i.e. Asst. Provident fund commissioner, Regional office, Raichur is hereby directed to recalculate the pension payable to the complainants in complaint are entitled for the benefit of minimum pension calculated with reference to Para 12 and Table-B shown in the Employees’ pension Scheme 1995. The Hon,ble high court considered the similar facts of an employee directed the provident fund commissioner to correct the error. The above observation supported by the observation made by the Hon,ble  High court of Karnataka in case K. Channakesavalu Versus the Employees provident Fund Organization represented by its commissioner, New Delhi and Others (ILR 2004 Kar 2859), wherein held that the pensioner are entitled for two years weightage under 10 (2) each complaint giving weightage of two years and also extend minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service with effect from the date of retirement of the each Complainant along with arrears of pension with interest at the rate 12% per annum and also directed to the Op No.1 to give annual reliefs as per paragraph 32 of the scheme 1995 to all the complainants from the respective due date along with the interest at 12 % per annum. Apart from the above the Op No 1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- each to the Complainant in all the cases towards cost of the litigation expenses payment shall be made within 60 days from the receipt of this order.  With this we answer point No.1 Affirmative

As per as Op No 2 is concerned in all cases, there is no deficiency in service. Hence the complainant against Op No 2 & 3 are hereby dismissed.

In the present case, interest considered by this forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.

           7) Point No 2:-   In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

        C.C.No.12/2016, 123/2016 and 13/2017, 53/2017, CC No.83/2017, and 105/2017 are allowed partly.

I) The Op No 1 i.e., Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional office, Raichur is hereby directed to recalculate the pension payable to the complainants in each complaint giving weightage of two years and also extend minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service with effect from the date of retirement of the each complainants along with arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

II) And also directed to the Op No 1 to give annual relief as per paragraph 32 of the scheme 1995 to all the complainants from the respective due date along with interest at 12% per annum.

III) Apart from the above Op No.1 is hereby directed to pay
Rs.2,000/- each to the complainant in all the cases towards cost of the litigation expenses, and mental agony. Payment shall be made within 2 months from the receipts of this order.

IV) Complaints against O.P. No 2 & 3 are hereby dismissed.

V) Keep the original orders in complaint No 12/2016 and copy in other connected cases and Opposite Party in all the cases are common. Since the complaints are 06 Nos., both the counsels are directed to receive the certified copies instead of free copies in order to save time.

(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 25^th day of September 2018)

ANNEXURE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of the complainants:-      

1) Shri. Shaberabegum W/o. Chandasab Tidagundi

2) Shri. Nagayya S/o. Shivamurtayya Hiremath,

3) Shri. Kashimsab S/o. Moulasab Contractor,

4) Smt. Dulahanabi W/o. Ibrahim @ Ibrahimsab Ghodesawar,

5) Shri. Datatreya S/o. Manohar Mahindrakar,

6) Smt. Kamala W/o. Shivasiddappa Naduvinamani,

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in complaint No.12 of 2016.

1. Ex C1:- P.P.O. Copy
2. Ex C2:-Postal Receipts
3. Ex.C3:- Representation Copy,

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in complaint No 123 of 2016.

1) Ex C1: P.P.O. Copy,

2) Ex. C2 : D.E.O. Copy,

3) Ex. C3 :  Postal Receipts

4) Ex. C4 : Representation Copy

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in complaint No 13 of 2017.

1) Ex C1:-P.P.O. Copy,

2) Ex C2:- Representation Copy,

3) Ex. C3 D.E.O. Copy,

4) Ex C4:- Postal Acknowledgement of O.P.No.1

5) Ex C5:- Postal Receipts.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in complaint No 53 of 2017.

1) Ex C1:- PPO Copy,

2) Ex C2:- Postal receipts,

3) Ex C3:- Representation Copy of complainant

4) Ex C4 :- Postal Acknowledgement of O.P.No.1,

5) Ex C5:- Death Certificate of complainant’s husband,

6) Ex. C6:- LR’s Certificate of complainant’s husband,

7) Ex.07 :- True copy of Aadhar Card of complainant

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in complaint No 83 of 2017.

1) Ex C1:-P.P.O. copy of the complainant,

2) Ex C2:- D.E.O. Copy of the complainant,

3) Ex C3:- Postal receipt

4) Ex.C4: Representation copy of the complainant,

5) Ex C5:- Postal Acknowledgement  

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in complaint No 105 of 2017.

1) Ex. C1:- P.P.O. Copy of complainant’s husband,

2) Ex, C2: Representation copy of complainant,

3) Ex C3:- Postal acknowledgment of O.P.No.1

4) Ex C4:- Death Certificate of Shivasiddappa S/o. Shivasangappa

                Naduvinmani, Date: 22-12-2016.