BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sukhwinder Singh son of Sh.Jagdish Singh, Resident of H.No.50, Green Enclave, Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali. 

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1]        ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO No.151-152, Sector9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

2]        ICICI Bank Ltd., Videocon Tower, Second Floor, BlockE-I

                                        ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

PRESENT:     Complainant in person.

Sh.N.K.Zakhmi, Adv. for OPs No.1,2 & 3.

Sh.Raj Kumar, Adv. for OPs No.4 & 5.

PER SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

               Succinctly put, the complainant retired as Asstt. General Manager (Accounts) [Cat.1 Officer], from Food Corporation of India on 31.5.2008 while working at Regional Office Punjab of OPs No.1 to 3, Chandigarh.  The complainant being a member of Employees Pension Scheme, submitted all the requisite papers, well before his retirement, for grant of pension under to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, which were duly forwarded by OP No.1.  However, OP No.4 returned his pension case with remarks that “the case does not pertain to H.Q. it is covered under North Zone. Since member will attain 58 years of age after 31.3.2006, case will be settled by the concerned Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, whereas as per rules, the pension case Cat.1 Officers are to be got settled by the FCI H.Q. New Delhi (OP No.1) from R.P.F.C., New Delhi (OP No.4) and the pension cases of Cat.II to IV employees are required to be got settled by FCI Zonal Office (North) Noida (OP No.2) from RPFC, Noida (OP No.5).  The OP No.1 erred by sending the pension case of the complainant to OP No.2 – Zonal Office and OP No.2 too erred by sending his pension case to OP No.5 – RPFC, Noida as it was not an appropriate authority in case of Cat.1 Officers of the FCI.

                It is averred that as per rules, the FPS case was to be settled by OPNo.4 but neither the case was scrutinized by OP No.4 nor by OPNo.1 as a result the case was not settled for so long. The OP No.5  was also requested vide letter dated 11.7.2009 with a copy to OPs No.1 & 2 to settle the pension case of the complainant within 15 days, otherwise he would be compelled to seek legal remedy but all in vain.  Even the General Manager, Regional office (FCI), Punjab (OP No.3) did not pursue the case after submission of the case to the FCI, H.Q. (OP No.1) on 7.8.2007.  It is submitted that despite timely submission of the required papers with the authorities, the pension has not been released to the complainant so far and he has been deprived of his pension due to which  the complainant is suffering great financial loss & problem as well as mental agony and physical harassment.  Therefore, this complaint has been filed.

                In the end the complainant has made the following prayer:-

(a)      To hold and declare the opposite parties guilty of the deficiency in service as per the provision of the said act.

(b)      To direct the opposite parties to settle the pension case along with interest 18% per annum there on from the date of eligibility of pension till payment of the same.

(c)      To direct the opposite parties to pay towards cost compensation and mental agony suffered/incurred by the complainant as deem fit by the Hon’ble Forum.

(d)      For such other and further relief as the nature and circumstances of this case may deem fit and proper.

2]             OPs No.1 to 3 filed joint reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It is submitted that the pension papers of the complainant were submitted to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who returned the same  vide letter dated 26.6.2008 with remarks that it would be settled by the concerned Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Thereafter, the OP Management submitted the papers for fixation of family pension of complainant vide letter dated 13.8.2008 to concerned Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, as such there was no delay on the part of OPs No.1 to 3.  It is also submitted that the pension of the complainant has been released vide letter dated 24.12.2009 (Ann.I).  It is denied that there was any deficiency, negligence or delay on the part of answering OPs. 

3]             OPs No.4 & 5 filed joint reply and admitted that in order to stream line the procedure for settlement of pension claim, it was decided by EPFO that all pension cases belonging to Classes I to IV officials will be dealt with at one place i.e. Noida Office w.e.f. 31.3.2006 and accordingly the OP No.1 was asked to submit the pension papers of the complainant to concerned RPFC – OP NO.5 as he had superannuated on 4.5.2006 i.e. after 31.3.2006.  It is stated that the complete pension papers of the complainant were received from OP No.2 – FCI, Noida only on 18.12.2009 by OP No.5 vide Ann.R-4/2  and the same were processed immediately and forwarded to the Regional Office Jaipur, Rajasthan for disbursement of the pension as the complainant desired his monthly pension through SBI, Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan.  It is also stated that the monthly pension has been released to the complainant vide PPO No.992063, dated 12.3.2010 without any delay.  It is asserted that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.4 and 5 and if there was any delay that was on the part of OPs No.1 to 3 (FCI).  Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that complaint quo OP No.4 to 5 be dismissed.

4]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6]             The basic facts of the case in respect of the complainant having retired as Asstt. General Manager (Accounts) (Category-1 Officer) from F.C.I. on 31.5.2008 while working at the regional office at Punjab, Chandigarh (OP No1. to 3) and that he was a member of the Employee’s Pension Scheme  for the grant of pension, have all been admitted.  The contention of the complainant is that he had submitted all requisite papers well before his retirement to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – OP-4 through OP-1.  However, OP No.4 returned his pension case with the remarks that the case does not pertain to the Head Quarter and it is covered under the North Zone of the FCI.  The complainant says that since the member will be attaining 58 years of age after 31.3.2006, the case will be settled by the concerned Regional Provident Fund Commissioner whereas as per rules, the pension case of Category-1 Officers are to be got settled by the F.C.I. Head Quarter, New Delhi – OP-1 from Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Dehi-OP-4 and the pension cases of Category-II to IV employees are required to be got settled by the FCI Zonal Office (North), Noida-OP-2 from Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noia-OP.5.   The complainant says that OP No.1 committed an error by sending his Pension Case to OP No.2 i.e. Zonal Office of FCI and OP No.2 also committed the same mistake by sending his Pension Case to OP No.5 i.e. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida because it was not an appropriate authority in case of Cat.1 Officers of the FCI.  The complainant further says that his family pension case was to be settled by OP No.4 i.e. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi Office but neither the case was scrutinized by OP No.4 nor by OP No.1 and as a result the case was not settled for a long time.  He also requested OP No.5 on 11.7.2009 to settle the pension case, but the same was not done.  Even OP No.3 i.e. General Manager, FCI did not pursue the case after its submission to the FCI office on 7.8.2007.  All this process delayed the grant of pension to the complainant for a very long period and finally, it was only on 24.12.2009 that the pension was granted to the complainant, although he had retired from service on 31.5.2008, which means there was a delay of about 2 years.

7]             OP No.1 to 3, who are the employers of the complainant have filed a joint reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case.  These OPs admitted that the pension papers of the complainant were received by them only on 23.7.2007 although the complainant had attained the 58 years of age on 31.3.2006, which means that the complainant himself had submitted the papers to them 16 months after his attaining 58 years of age.  The papers submitted by the complainant were forwarded by the Regional office of FCI, Punjab, Chandigarh – OP.3  to OP No.5-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida on 7.8.2007 (Ann.R-1/1).  On scrutiny of the papers, it was found that the Social Security Number (SSN) had not been written in the Pension Case and the complainant was asked to complete the formalities.  The complainant conveyed the SSN and thereafter the paper were again submitted by OP No.3 to OP No.1 on 19.6.2008 (Ann.R-1/3).

8]             After competing the formalities, the pension papers were first sent by OP No.3 to OP No.4 i.e. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi on 24.5.2008 (Ann.R-1/4) by Op No.1.  The papers submitted by OP No.1 to OP No.4 were returned by OP No.4 to OP NO.1 on 26.6.2008 (Ann.R-1/5) with the directions that the case does not pertain to the Head Quarter of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and it was covered under North Zonal since the member will attain 58 years of age after 31.3.2006 and the case will be settled by the concerned Regional Provident Commissioner. 

9]             Subsequently, pension papers of the complainant for the grant of family pension were sent by FCI, Zonal Office, North to  the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida on 13.8.2008 (Annexure R-1/VI).   Thereafter, the complainant filed the present complaint on 1.12.2009 but still no action was taken by the OPs to expedite the family pension case of the complainant till as late as Dec., 2009.  Finally, the Manager (Accounts), CPF, FCI, Zonal Office, Noida – OP No.2 conveyed to the complainant on 24.12.2009 that a Pension Payment Order dated 24.12.2009 has been got released from Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida and the same is being sent to him for necessary action.

10]            After the receipt of P.P.O. (Pension Payment Order), dated 24.12.2009, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) wrote to the complainant to open the bank account in P.N.B. at Sri Ganga Nagar and convey them the Account Number and also send one attested copy of the bank passbook having the name of the branch of the bank and account number. The needful was done by the complainant accordingly and finally the pension was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant as late as on 12.3.2010.  The Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Pension), Jodhpur (Rajasthan) sanctioned the monthly pension @Rs.1252/- per month and also paid the pension arrears of Rs.57,425/- to the complainant but without any interest on the delayed payment of arrears.  With this the family pension case of the complainant was closed by the OPs, but it is a fact that the entire process has taken more than 4 years. 

11]            No doubt that the complainant himself had submitted his Pension Papers on 23.7.2007 instead of 31`.3.2006, which means the was delay of about 16 months on the part of the complainant in completing the papers but even counting from this date, the OPs jointly and collectively have taken about 3 years to finalize and disburse the family pension to the complainant. 

12]            From the above detailed analysis of the entire case, it is quite clear that OPs No.1 to 3 i.e. FCI, Head Quarter and its other offices on the one hand and OPs No.4 & 5, which are the offices of R.P.F. Commissioner, on the other hand, have clearly connived with one another and in the process deprived the complainant from receiving his family pension for long 3 years.

13]            Even from the joint reply of OPs No.1 to 3, it is quite clear that the pension papers of the complainant were being shuttled from one office to the other without considering and finalizing the issue as to which office will deal with these papers.  

14]            Not only that, there has been an inordinate delay in deciding as to which office is to deal with the pension case of the complainant, both at the level of FCI and R.P.F.C. and also that there has been enormous delay in transacting the papers from one office to the other.  For example when the pension papers were submitted well before the date of retirement by OP No.3 to the Zonal Office of RPFC, Noida on 7.8.2007, there was a simple discrepancy found by OP No.5 that there was no mention of the Social Security Number of the complainant.  This discrepancy should have been thoroughly checked right on day one i.e. before submitting the papers to Op No.5 but the same was not done.  Even presuming that this discrepancy could not be noticed somehow or the other by OP No.3, the same should have been rectified immediately but the OPs took about one year to rectify this small discrepancy and resubmitted the papers only on 19.6.2008 to RPFC, Noida (OP No.5). The process of shuttling the pension papers of the helpless complainant continued by all the OPs for a long time on the simple issue as to which office of the RPFC will deal with the pension case of the complainant and the case was finally submitted only on 28.6.2008 to the competent authority, conveying that the concerned RPFC, Noida – OP No.5 shall deal with the matter.  After all this long process, the papers complete in all respect were forwarded by the FCI, Zonal Office, Noida-OP.2 to RPFC, Noida-OP.5 on 13.8.2008.  Even after completion of such a long and torturous process, the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida did not take any action in the matter for another 16 month’s long time and it was only on 24.12.2009 that the FCI on receiving sanction from OP No.5 had conveyed to the complainant that the PPO (Pension Payment Order) was ready and the same was being sent to him for further necessary action at his end.  All this shows that both the FCI (OPs No1. to 3) as well as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (OPs No.4 & 5) were sleeping over the matter for years together and woke up from their deep slumber only after a period of some 16 months even when they had with them the complete set of papers ready  for grant of family pension in the case of the complainant.

15]            Section 17A of The Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, relates to the payment of pension.  The same is quoted below:-

                17A. Payment of Pension

The claims, complete in all respects submitted along with the requisite documents shall be settled and benefit amount paid to the beneficiaries within 30 days from the date of its receipt by the Commissioner. If there is any deficiency in the claim, the same shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt of such application. In case the Commissioner fails without sufficient cause to settle a claim complete in all respects within 30 days, the Commissioner shall be liable for the delay beyond the said period and penal interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum may be charged on the benefit amount and the same may be deducted from the salary of the Commissioner.

16]            From the above detailed discussion, there is not even an iota of doubt that there has been a gross negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of all the OPs i.e. OPs No.1 to 3 on the one side and OPs No.4 to 5 on the other.  Both sets of OPs are equally deficient in service and negligent in their conduct in dealing with the pension case of the complainant and they have also indulged in an unfair trade practice for withholding the pension of the complainant for such a long time i.e. for about 3 years.  The OPs have failed to provide any cogent reasons or adequate justification for delaying the pension case of the complainant for such a long time.  All the reasoning given in the written statement/reply of the OPs simply falls flat and is merely a face saving device on their part.  It is just not acceptable by any logical standards. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the present complaint has lot of merit, weight and substance and deserves acceptance as the complainant has suffered immensely at the hands of all the OPs for no fault of his.  We, therefore, allow the complaint in favour of the complainants and against the OPs and order as under:-

i)         OPs No.1 to 3 shall jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing him financial losses as well as physical harassment mental agony, pain on account of inordinate delay in settling his pension case i.e. for 3 years or so.

ii)        OPs No.4 to 5 shall jointly and severally pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant  for causing him financial losses, physical harassment, mental tension and pain on account of delaying his pension case for a period of 3 years. 

iii)       All the OPs shall also jointly and severally pay the litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. 

                The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the OPs jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall pay the amount Rs.75,000/- (Rs.50,000/- by OPs No.1 to 3 and Rs.25,000/- by OPs No.4 & 5 respectively) along with interest @18% per annum, in each case, from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 01.12.2009 till its actual payment to the complainant, besides payment of Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation. 

17]            Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16^th Aug., 2010                                                 Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                Sd/-

                                                (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

‘Om’