Rajasthan

Jaipur-II

520/2009

PADAM CHAND JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

COMMISIONER PROVIDENT FUND - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2015

ORDER

OFFICE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM         JAIPUR-II

                                                                        

 

 Before:                                     Mr.  R. S. KULHARI                           PRESIDENT

                                                          Mr.  SHREECHAND KUMAWAT    MEMBER       

                                                          Mrs. HEMLATA AGARWAL            MEMBER

 

CASE NO - 519/2009 & 520/2009

 

         Padam Chand Jain S/o Late Shri M.L. Jain, Age 63 Years R/o- 4-M-60,

         Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

                                                                                                Complainant

Versus

         Commissioner Provident fund   Address – Nidhi Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar,

         Jaipur.

                                                                                                Opposite Party

 

Case under Section 12, Consumer Protection Act

                           Attended: -

                         Shri P K Khetan                   Counsel for the Complainant

                            Shri Krishna Khandelwal     Counsel for the Opposite Party

 

                                  Date of Presentation of complaint   –   15.07.2009

                                  Date of Decision                              –   07.01.2015

 

 

                                       The parties in both the above complaints are the same so also the genesis of dispute, therefore for both these complaints are being disposed of by common order.

                                    The facts in brief are, that the complainant was employee of different companies and his pension account was with opposite party (O.P.in short hereinafter). The complainant and respective employers used to contribute premium in his pension account under the scheme EPS-95. It was alleged that complainant submitted his claim on 17/12/2008 for payment of all the dues as the amount was required to meet the expenses to be incurred in marriage of his daughter but that was not paid by O.P. On being contracted he was apprised that his claim was returned without any reason and then he was directed to submit his claim afresh and as such he applied again. It was further averred that the O.P. has informed that the complainant is getting double pension therefore his claim cannot be passed. If there was any technical mistake for two pension accounts still the O.P. was under obligation to make the payment of outstanding. The complainant has given written undertaking to the effect that if any extra amount had been paid to him, he would repay the same. However the O.P. has delayed the payment which caused unnecessary financial burden to the complainant during the marriage of his daughter. Ultimately a sum of Rs. 1283150/- was credited to his account on 20/3/2009 after deduction the dues. With these facts the complainant has requested for relief as mentioned in para 8.

                                          Since the complainant was drawing two pensions in different accounts so it was alleged in the second complaint that the O.P. was prejudice to him due to two pensions and have stopped to pay the regular pension. Therefore a request was made to continue his pension and to pay the arrears thereof.

                                           The O.P. in its reply has stated that the complainant was getting two pensions in different accounts malafidely and have deliberately concealed the facts to defraud the O.P. and he had also drawn the commutation of pension in both the accounts. It was clarified that the complainant has submitted form no 10 before O.P. stating that he is not drawing any pension and similar narration was made in the other form no 10 and different bank accounts were mentioned in both these forms. So it was not possible for O.P. to find out the tactics adopted by complainant. Since the complainant has drawn extra amount which was detected when he submitted the claim in question, the first form was returned for want of formalities whereas the second claim was paid after deduction of extra amount drawn by the complainant. It was also mentioned that after adjustment of that amount the revised PPO was prepared. Therefore complainant is not entitled for any relief.

                                          We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record.

                                           It is apparent from the record that the complainant has got the pension issued from O.P. in two accounts, one in SB account no 0300186745 and the other in SB account no 01190018678 vide application (Performa 10) exhibit-1 and exhibit-2 respectively. The bare perusal of exhibit-1 and exhibit-2 depicts that column 16 was regarding payment of pension under scheme of 1995. This column in both the applications was kept blank by the complainant. When one pension/computation of pension was issued then it was expected from complainant to mention that fact in the second application but he did not detail out the same. This goes to show that for one or the other reason, he has concealed this fact for which the O.P. has imputed malafides on the part of complainant. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that complainant was drawing two pensions in different bank accounts and had got computation of pension twice. This discrepancy was unearthed when the complainant submitted his claim form. The complainant has tried to justify this mistake by stating that he took advice from other persons so it was not within his knowledge and the socalled technical mistake was committed but his defence does not appear to be believable. It is clear from the affidavit submitted on behalf of O.P. that the claim form was submitted on 30/01/2009 which was granted on 17/03/2009. Meanwhile a sum of Rs. 62500/- was deducted from EPF account of the complainant which was paid in excess due to double accounts. It is inevitable that calculation of such type of correction and recovery takes a reasonable time. So in our opinion the department has not caused any delay or committed any deficiency in service for payment of the claim sought by the complainant which was completed within one and a half month. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any type of relief in complaint no 520/2009. And the same is liable to be rejected being devoid of merit.

                                     Now we consider the relief sought in complaint no 519/2009. As discussed above, the claim of complainant was settled and paid on 17/03/2009 after all deductions and adjustments. So thereafter it was duty of the O.P. to revise the pension payment order at the earliest. After waiting about four months, this complaint was filed on 15/07/2009 whereas the revised PPO annexure 3 was issued on 19/02/2010. i.e. after lapse of about one year. The O.P./representatives has not explained the reason for this inordinate delay neither in reply or nor in the affidavit. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P. on this count and complainant is entitled to get reasonable compensation along with cost of proceedings.

ORDER

                    The complaint no 520/2009 is dismissed being devoid of merit and no orders as to cost of proceedings for this complaint.

                     The complaint no 519/2009 is accepted to the extent that the O.P. will pay a sum of Rs. 7000/- (Seven thousands rupees) towards compensation and loss of interest of delayed pension and Rs. 3000/- (three thousand rupees) as cost of proceedings to the complainant within two months from today. Copy of this order be placed in file no 519/2009.

 

 

(SHREECHAND KUMAWAT)      (HEMLATA AGARWAL)           (R.S. KULHARI)

     MEMBER                                   MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

 

 

Order pronounced and signed on 07/01/2015

 

 

 

(SHREECHAND KUMAWAT)      (HEMLATA AGARWAL)           (R.S. KULHARI)

     MEMBER                                   MEMBER                        PRESIDENT