View 8734 Cases Against Provident Fund
View 8734 Cases Against Provident Fund
N. BHASKARAN filed a consumer case on 28 Oct 2015 against CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is FA/147/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 17 Dec 2015.
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI MEMBER
F.A.NO. 147/2012
[Against the Order in C.C No.40/2008 dated 21.11.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South) ]
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
N.Bhaskaran
Flat No. B-2,Shakti Flats
15, East Ellaiamman koil street
Kottur, Chennai 600 085 ..Appellant/complainant
Vs
1.Central Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Bhavishya Nidhi bhawan
14, Bhikaifi Cama Place
New Delhi 110 066
2. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Office of Provident Fund Commissioner
Bhavishya Nidhi bhawan
DK Block, Sector-II
Salt Lake City
Kolkatta 700 091
West Bengal ..Respondent/opposite parties
Counsel for Appellant/complainant : M/s M.Venkatachalam
Counsel for Respondent/opposite parties : M/s S.Srinivasan
The appellant is the complainant. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South) in CC.No. 40/2008 dated 21.11.2011.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 1.10.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Chennai (South) this commission made the following order.
THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant retired from M/s Eveready India Ltd, Chennai, Madras Branch as an employee and he had opted for Voluntary Retirement Service and retired from service on 1.2.1998 since his pension was not settled on 23.2.2004 he submitted the claim form and it was not considered by the opposite parties and thereby a legal notice was issued on 3.12.2005 to the opposite parties and after, the 1st opposite party informed that he had not submitted the Form 10-D and subsequently a consumer complaint came to be filed claiming the relief against the opposite parties.
3. Denying the allegations against them opposite party contending non-submission of Form 10-D caused the failure to settle the pension claim by accepting the same, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, observing deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant filed the appeal and in the grounds of appeal, he had stated pending enquiry of the complaint, the 2nd opposite party once again demanded for Form 10 D for the 3rd time which was submitted as per the letter dated 10.5.2008 marked as Ex.A.7 and his pension was released with arrears from 6.8.1997 till 30.9.2008. In spite of the same, the District Forum dismissed the complaint and the complainant is entitled for the pension with hold from 6.8.1997 till 30.9.2008 and 12% p.a interest.
5. We have heard both side arguments and considered the written submissions in this regard. The complainant claimed at this stage only a direction to pay the interest for the failure of settling the pension for the period of 6.8.1997 till 30.9.2008 with 12% p.a interest for Rs. 87,224.56 as per memo of calculation enclosed in the type set filed before this Commission in page No.76. The opposite parties dispersed the pension pending before the District Forum enquiry to the complaint on the basis of Form 10 D submitted by the complainant at their request, settled the claim as per documents Ex.A.19 and the only contention of the complainant/appellant is for payment of interest for the same for the delay caused for which he relied upon the ruling reported in
IV (2014) CPJ 170 (NC)
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) – Employees’ pension Scheme, 1995 – Section 17A – Pension – Delay in release – Interest for delayed period sought – Deficiency in service – District Forum allowed complaint – State Commission partly allowed appeal – Hence revision - section 17 of scheme of 2005 provides grant of 12% p.a. interest in case of delay of more than 30 days in release of pension – When interest was allowed as per provisions of scheme of 1995, compensation was not required to be granted – No illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order”
6. In view of the same, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for the same and he had filed a calculation memo in this regard and as per the same, he claimed Rs.87,224.56, interest for the period of pension payable between 6.8.1997 to 30.9.2008 and he is entitled for the same. Against which the opposite parties have not submitted any material to refuse the same. Accordingly to that extent alone, the appeal to be allowed and thereby the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC 40/2008 dated 21.11.2011 and the complaint/appeal partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South) in CC.40/2008 dated 21.11.2011 and complaint is partly allowed.
The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 87,224.56 as interest for the delay in arrears of pension claimed for the period from 6.8.1997 to 30.9.2008 and also to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- as cost.
The directions shall be complied within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
P.BAKIYAVATHI A.K.ANNAMALAI
MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.