MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.       This is an appeal filed by OP No.3 against order dated 23.8.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 209 of 2010.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that the complainant was working as Manager (General) with Food Corporation of India (FCI) and he retired on 31.3.2009. While in service with OP No.2, the complainant was a member of Employees Pension Scheme-1995 having CPF No.3635 and F.P.S. A/c No.11852 and entitled for pension under EPS 1995 from 1.4.2007, on attaining the age of 58 years. It was submitted by the complainant that prior to his retirement, the complainant submitted all the requisite papers for the grant of pension under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, which was forwarded by OP No.2 vide letter dated 31.6.2008 to DGM (CPF), Food Corporation of India, Noida i.e. office of OP No.1, who forwarded the same to OP No.3 but even after lapse of one year and nine months, no response to release the family pension was received nor any back reference was received from the competent authority. It was submitted that despite timely submission of the required papers with the authorities, neither the pension was released nor any reasons explained for withholding the same and accordingly the pension of the complainant was illegally withheld by the concerned authority. Due to non payment of pension to the complainant for a long time it has caused a great financial as well as irreparable loss to the complainant as well as to the entire family, in addition to it, complainant was put mental agony/distress on account of undue delay in releasing the pension to the complainant. The above said act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.       Reply was filed by the OPs No.1 and 2 (FCI) and admitted the factual matrix of the case but it was denied that the complainant completed all the formalities. It was pleaded that the complainant after becoming eligible for pension applied and submitted Form 10-D and other papers on 15.5.2008 i.e. after a period of about 13 months and the papers were immediately forwarded to the DGM (CPF), FCI, Noida on 29.5./30.6.2008, who after completing all the formalities forwarded the same to the OP No.3 vide letter dated 21.10.2008 but the same were returned by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida to FCI Zonal Office, Noida vide letter dated 10.9.2009. The (FCI) Zonal Office, Noida after due process, forwarded the papers to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida vide letter dated 11.3.2010. It was further submitted that the main reason for delay in submitting the papers was due to the refusal by the RPFC Office to accept the pension claim. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of Ops No.1 and 2. It was pleaded that pension was to be fixed by Ops No. 3 and 4 and as such there was no claim against the answering Ops. All other allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.          Separate reply was filed by OPs No.3 & 4 and submitted that the complainant was not entitled for compensation as claimed in the complaint because the complete pension papers were received by OP No.3 from OP No.1 on 28.4.2010. It is evident from 10-D (Pension Claim) and the same were processed in accordance with the provisions of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and the same were sent along with pension input data sheet to OP No.4 (RPFC Chandigarh) through registered post for issuing the pension payment order (PPO) in favour of the complainant as the complainant desired his monthly pension through State Bank of India, Sector 34, Chandigarh as the said area falls within the jurisdiction of OP No.4 (RPFC Chandigarh). The OP No.4 without any delay issued pension payment order vide PPO No. PB/CHD/00017849 on 21.6.2010 along with arrears. So, there was no delay on the part of answering Ops i.e. OPs No. 3 and 4 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.       The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

6.       The learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP  No.3 to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with litigation costs of Rs.5,500/-. The OP No.3 was directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which they would be liable to pay the entire amount along with penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the filing of the complaint i.e. 31.3.2010 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint against OPs No. 1, 2 and 4 with no order as to costs. It was further directed that OP No.3 would be free to recover the above said amount along with interest and costs from the salary of the officer(s)/official(s) due to whose inaction the matter was delayed, of course after giving notice to the concerned employee(s) as required under the relevant service rules.

7.          Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the OP No.3.  Ms.Geeta Sharma, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellant, Sh.Vinod Kumar, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sh.N.K.Zakhmi, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.

8.       In appeal, it is contended by the appellant that they issued EPF Code No.UP/36784 to the respondents No.2 and 3  April, 2006 as the appellant has employees record of respondents No.2 and 3 only from April, 2006 onwards. It is submitted by the appellants that before April, 2006 details of employees EPF contributions should be provided by respondents No.2 and 3. Since the new code has been allotted to them due to the decentralization of the FCI but FCI has failed to update the accounts of employees as per the requirement after the decentralization.   The FCI failed to submit the Form 13-A along with Form 10-D of the R-1 and according to the EPF Act, without Form 13-A the appellant could not settle the case of respondent No.1 as the complete details were not sent to the appellants for the disbursement of the pension. The case was returned by the appellant on 10.9.2009 as it was incomplete. The appellant issued several reminders to the FCI in this regard (Annexures A-1 to A-5). The appellant received the Form 10-D of the respondent No.1 along with the complete details of his EPF and pension contribution details in the month of April, 2010. The appellant settled the claim and issued the PPO on 21.6.2010 for disbursement of monthly pension. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of appellant, rather the delay and deficiency is on the part of FCI, who has taken such a long period in submitting the duly completed claim form 10-D along with Form 13 F as per the requirement of the disbursement of the pension within the stipulated period. It is submitted that appellants did regular correspondence and communication with FCI to provide the complete details but FCI failed to reply the same promptly. It is further submitted that FCI is also a defaulter of Provident Fund dues of Rs.63,17,69,582/- as per the assessment order of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi (North). The learned District Forum has relied upon the averments of FCI without any substantial proof or instructions issued by the appellant and FCI had argued that appellants have refused to accept the claim papers of respondent No.1. The stand taken by the FCI is false because during the period, the appellant has received and settled number of claims. It is submitted that there was no question of non acceptance of the pension papers by the appellant as during 2009-2010 the appellant has accepted total 139595 number of claims, out of which 136429 numbers of claims were disposed i.e. more than 97% of claims were settled. Hence, the allegation that this office is not accepting the claim forms does not hold ground. The letter dated 10.9.2009 sent to the CGM, Noida (FCI) to the RPFC clearly shows the true picture regarding the status of claims. The Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) issued revised procedure in respect of employees of FCI vide letter dated 17.4.2009 to the FCI, so that the claims of employees can be settled expeditiously but FCI has failed to follow the guidelines regarding the submission of claim forms of their employees in order to expedite the matter. It is submitted that as the General Principle no Government Office can refuse to accept the papers as alleged in the present case. No justifiable reason was given by respondents No. 2 and 3 to prove their alleged stand that why the papers were finally sent on 24.4.2010 when the papers were submitted on 27.11.2009 and the learned District Forum has looked into the negligent and malafide conduct of the FCI while passing the impugned order and dismissing the complaint against respondents No. 2 and 3. The learned District Forum has erred in allowing the complaint by awarding Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with Rs.5,500/- as litigation costs which could not be granted in any circumstances and the entire findings recorded by the learned District Forum in the impugned order are baseless. The complainant has not placed on record any document proving averments and allegations of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of appellants to delay the settlement of pension claim of respondent No.1 and as such the learned District Forum, without any material on record, placed by the complainant, relied upon the version of the respondents No. 2 and 3. Hence, it is prayed that appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be set aside.

9.       The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (complainant) argued that the complainant was working as Manager (General) with Food Corporation of India (FCI) and he was retired on 31.3.2009. While in service with OP No.2, the respondent No.1 /complainant was a member of Employees Pension Scheme-1995 from 1.4.2007 on attaining the age of 58 years. Prior to his retirement, the respondent No.1 /complainant submitted all the requisite papers for the grant of pension, which was forwarded by respondent No.3/OP No.2 vide letter dated 31.6.2008 to DGM (CPF), FCI, Noida i.e. office of respondent No.2/OP No.1, who forwarded the same to appellant/OP No.3 but even after one year and nine months, the family pension was not released to him which caused him a lot of mental agony and distress. Due to non payment of pension to the respondent No.1 /complainant for a long time, has caused a great financial as well as irreparable loss to the respondent No.1 /complainant as well as to the entire family. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be dismissed.

10.     The learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 denied that the respondent No.1 /complainant completed all the formalities and argued that the complainant after becoming eligible for pension applied and submitted Form 10-D and other papers on 15.5.2008 i.e. after a period of about 13 months and the papers were immediately forwarded to the DGM (CPF), FCI, Noida on 29.5./30.6.2008, who after completing all the formalities forwarded the same to the appellant/OP No.3 vide letter dated 21.10.2008 but the same were returned by the RPFC, Noida to FCI Zonal Office, Noida vide letter dated 10.9.2009. The Zonal Office, Noida after due process, forwarded the papers to RPFC, Noida vide letter dated 11.3.2010 and submitted that the main reason for delay in submitting the papers was due to the refusal to accept the papers by the RPFC Office. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of FCI.

11.     We have gone through the file and heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that pension papers of the complainant was forwarded to the OP No.1 (FCI) vide letter dated 29.5./30.6.2008 (Annexure – I) and the OP No.1 sent the pension case to OP No.3 (RPFC, Noida) on 21.10.2008 vide Annexure –II who after keeping this case of the complainant with it about 11 months, sent back the same to OP No. 2 on 10.9.2009 vide Annexure – (III). The OP No.2 again submitted the pension case of the complainant to OP No.3 on 11.3.2010. Thereafter the OP No.3 ultimately released the pension case of the complainant again after keeping it for almost about 3 months. It has been observed by us that the main reason for delay was due to the refusal by the OPs No. 3 and 4 to accept the pension papers of the employees on the ground that there was rush with them and they were unable to deal with the cases. Annexure V is the letter dated 3.12.2009 showing that OP No.3 had stopped accepting the pension cases. Hence, it has been proved beyond any doubt that this delay is due to the fault of OP No.3 and the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint and directed against the OP No.3 (RPFC, Noida) and dismissed it against OPs No. 1,2 and 4. The learned District Forum rightly directed the OP No.3 (RPFC, Noida) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation costs of Rs.5,500/-. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is just, fair and proper. No interference is called for. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

12.          Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                        

12^th January, 2011.