BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 30th of November 2010
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.98/2010
(Admitted on 12.03.2010)
Mrs.Shobha,
Wo. Late Babu Naik,
Aged about 58 years,
RA. D.No.2 127 1,
Near Munnur Ranipura High School,
Munnur, Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.S.K. Ullal).
VERSUS
1. Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Sub Regional Office, P.B. No.572,
Mangalore 575 002.
(Advocate for Opposite Party No.1: Sri.J.Ravindra Naik).
2. M/s. South Kanara Home Industries,
Ganesh Bagh, Bejai,
Mangalore.
Rep. by its Proprietor. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for Opposite Party No.2: Sri.K.Nikesh Shetty).
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that, she was an employee of Opposite Party No.2 doing beedi rolling work since more than 35 years. As per the rules, she has become the member of Opposite Party No.1. After enforcement of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, she became the member of Opposite Party No.1 and her account Number is KN/6750/34472. After becoming the member of the Opposite Party No.1, portion of her wage was deducted by the Opposite Party No.2 and remitted to the Opposite Party No.1 along with Opposite Party’s contribution. It is stated that, due to her ill health, she was unable to work further and hence she has tendered her resignation and retired from service on 01.10.1997. At the time of retirement, she had completed the age of 46 years and her date of birth is 22.06.1951. After the completion of 50 years she applied for pension by submitting necessary documents to Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No.2. But her claim was rejected by the Opposite Parties stating that date of birth mentioned in the scheme certificate is 01.10.1962 and issued a scheme certificate to the Complainant. On receipt of the scheme certificate, Complainant had raised objection regarding the entries made with regard to the date of birth and submitted authenticated document i.e., school certificate. But there was no response from the Opposite Party, she raised the above claim before the Lok Adalath of the Opposite Party but the Opposite Parties promised the Complainant that they would look into the matter but till the filing of the above complaint, the Opposite Parties did not rectify the mistake and curtailed the pension entitled by the Complainant. It is stated that, inspite of the circular issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of Karnataka the Opposite Parties not considered the request made by the Complainant and not granted the pension which amounts to deficiency and hence the above complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to release the pension from July 2005 onwards with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version. Opposite Party No.1 stated that, at the time of joining EPF, her employer i.e., Opposite Party No.2 had furnished the age as 24 years as on 01.10.1986. So, according to this information the date of birth of the Complainant is 01.10.1962. As there is no variation of age/date of birth recorded in Form No.9, Form No.2 and Form No.10-C, Form No.10-C was processed and scheme certificate dated 02.03.2000 was issued incorporating the date of birth as 01.10.1962. It is stated that, after lapse of three years from the date of issue of scheme certificate, the Complainant is representing that, the date of birth recorded is not correct. The request of the Complainant with regard to the correction of the date of birth is not considered, as the member did not dispute the date of birth recorded in the returns submitted by the employer.
It is further submitted that, the Complainant has submitted the transfer certificate issued by the school authorities, wherein, the date of birth is shown as 22.06.1951 as per admission register in serial No.1634. This Opposite Party has duly verified the transfer certificate and it was found that the serial No.1634 stands in the name of another person. Therefore, the admission No.1634 shown in the complaint differs.
It is further submitted that, this Opposite Party informed the Complainant to produce the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths to verify the transfer certificate that has been submitted by her and contended that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite Party No.2 adopts the version of Opposite Party No.1.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Smt.Shobha (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on her. Ex C1 to C11 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.H.Chandrakanth Gadiyar (RW1), working as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner of the Opposite Party No.1 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 to R4 were marked for the Opposite Party No.1 as listed in the annexure. The Complainant produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
During the pendency of this complaint, the matter was posted for settlement. On 25.11.2010 the Complainant’s counsel filed a memo stating that, the Complainant had submitted the application for pension i.e., 10D on 18.11.2010 and the same has been acknowledged by the Opposite Party. However, the Opposite Party has undertaken to comply the date of birth furnished by the Complainant and accordingly the pension would be considered.
However, the Complainant submitted the corrected original transfer certificate to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party admitted that they are considering the request of the Complainant but the Complainant submitted the Transfer certificate on 18.11.2010 i.e., during the pendency of this complaint. Since the corrected original date of birth certificate submitted on 18.11.2010 the question of considering the compensation in this case does not arise. But the Complainant is entitled for the litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/-.
We have observed that, the Opposite Party undertaken to pay the pension by considering the date of birth 22.06.1951 i.e., as per the original transfer certificate to the Complainant. In view of that, the Opposite Party No.1 is hereby directed to release the pension accordingly without further delay. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
There is no deficiency is proved against Opposite Party No.2, hence complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is hereby dismissed.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is hereby directed to release the pension by considering the date of birth 22.06.1951 to the Complainant. And also pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
On failure to comply the aforesaid order within the stipulated time as mentioned above, the Opposite Party No.1 is hereby directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the above said amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is hereby dismissed.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of November 2010.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Smt.Shobha – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 20.03.2000: Scheme certificate issued by the Opposite Party No.1. (original)
Ex C2 – : School transfer certificate of the Complainant (Original).
Ex C3 – 07.08.2004: Copy of the letter issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C4 – 27.10.2004: Xerox copy of the letter issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C5 – 09.11.2004: Xerox copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant.
Ex C6 – 06.01.2005: Letter issued by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant.
Ex C7 – 04.08.2005: Copy of the letter issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C8 – 06.07.2005: Copy of the reminder letter issued by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant.
Ex C9 – 08.02.2010: Lawyer’s notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties.
Ex C10 - : Postal acknowledgement (2 in numbers).
Ex C11 - : Original transfer certificate.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Sri.H.Chandrakanth Gadiyar, working as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner of the Opposite Party No.1.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1:
Ex R1 – 25.10.1999: Attested copy of Form No.10-C.
Ex R2 – 25.10.1999: Attested copy of Form No.2 (Revised).
Ex R3 – 16.04.2010: Letter of the Opposite Party to their Regional Office along with admission register.
Ex R4 – 12.03.2010: Xerox copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant.
Dated:30.11.2010 PRESIDENT
