Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1400/2023

VIRENDER KUMAR JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION EPFO - Opp.Party(s)

I.P(Virendra Kumar Jain)

13 Mar 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing :19.07.2023

Date of Disposal :13.03.2024

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:13.03.2024

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K BSANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.1400/2023

Mr Virendra Kumar Jain

S/o Sri Kewal Chand Jain

Aged about 75 years

R/at No.1045, 10^th Main

WCR 2^nd Stage, Mahalakshmipuram

Bengaluru-560 086

Now R/at No.1295

25^th C Cross, 27^th Main

HSR Layout, Sector-II

Bengaluru-560 102                                                           Appellant

(In person)

-Versus-

 

Employees Provident Fund

Organisation (EPFO)

Represented by

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

No.62 (1^st & 2^nd Floor)

1^st Main Road, MEI Road

3^rd Cross, Industrial Suburb

Yeshwanthpur 2^nd Stage

Bengaluru-560 022                                                             Respondent

(By Mrs M R Shalamala, Advocate)

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, aggrieved by the Order dated 09.06.2023 passed in Consumer Complaint No.433/2021 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as District Commission).

2.       Heard the arguments of the Appellant in person and the learned Counsel for Respondent.

3.       Perused the impugned order, grounds of Appeal and secured records from the District Commission.

4.       The District Commission after enquiring into the matter, Dismissed the Complaint, with no order as to cost.  Being not satisfied with the Order, Complainant is in Appeal, contending amongst other grounds that the Impugned Order is arbitrary, erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.

5.       The allegation of the Complainant is that, about five months after his retirement, he had applied for Provident Fund Pension and received the pension & the Provident Fund but, not full amount and the Pensionary benefit rejected on some technical grounds.  The Employee Provident Fund Organisation Website clearly shows the Pension balance of Rs.66,348/- as on 31.03.2016 and again he applied ONLINE for his Pension benefit on 06.09.2021, it was rejected on 27.09.2021 due to technical issue.  On 28.09.2021, he raised an ONLINE Grievance against the rejection of his claim and OP replied stating that the claim has been rejected due to technical issue/error service and matter has been referred to Head Office, New Delhi, but, he has not received any reply.  The Pass Book down loaded from EPFO Website shows a balance amount of Rs.3,86,160/-, which amount is lying with EPF Organisation but, his claim has been rejected stating that the claim has already been settled on 30.10.2013. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, that his Pension has not been released and is still waiting for analysis result from their Head Office, New Delhi.

6.       Per contra, the stand taken by the Respondent is that the Claim of the Respondent has been settled and the pension has been fixed at Rs.1,049/- w.e.f 18.10.2006 and arrears of Rs.1,91,373/- for the period from 18.10.2006 to 31.12.2021 was also credited to the SB account of the Pensioner maintained SBI, Peenya Industrial Estate Branch.   Further  that the Complainant claimed PF balance amount of Rs.3,86,160/- which is being reflected in the Members PF Pass Book and that while processing the Annual Accounts for the year 2012-13, due to technical issues,an additional interest of Rs.3,04,212/- has been credited to the Member’s account, apart from actual paid interest of Rs.3,21,445/- and subsequently, interest has been carried forward till 2015-16 due to which the balance amount is reflecting in the Member Pass Book as claimed by the Complainant is calculated as per the provision of the Act, at 44,90,709/- is correct and there is no balance to be settled to the Complainant.

7.       Admittedly, the Complainant was an Employee of M/s ETA Technology Pvt. Ltd.,; he was the Member of Employees Provident Fund Organisation from 01.12.1996 and retired from the service on 11.01.2013. The contention of the complainant that OP rejected to pay the entitled full amount of Pensionary benefits and paid after a lapse of 15 years 2 months and 13 days as on 14.01.2022 and moreover after 70 days of filing of the Complaint.  OP fixed his Pension belatedly on 18.10.2006 and paid PF amount partly which is incorrect as per the statement dated 31.03.2016, therefore, again applied for re-fixation of Pension on 06.09.2021, which was rejected by the Respondent on 27.09.2021 due to technical reasons.  However, the contention of the OP that there is no due to be payable to the Complainant.

8.       The crux of the matter in the present Complaint is only in respect of the Pension fixed by the Respondent/OP and payment of arrears belatedly, that too only after filing of the Complaint, hence, the Complainant is claiming interest on the Pension as well as the Arrears to be payable to him.  In the circumstances, the Impugned Order requires to be interfered with, by remanding the matter to look into the matter, with regard to the correctness of the Pension fixed and whether the interest paid on the arrears is in time or belatedly by the OP/Respondent.  In the result, we proceed to pass the following

O R D E R

          Appeal is allowed in part.  Consequently, Impugned Order dated 09.06.2023 passed in Consumer Complaint No.433/2021 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Commission to decide the case afresh by affording an opportunity to both the parties, to adduce further evidence, if any,within three months from the Date of this Order.

Return the LCR forthwith to the District Commission.

 

 

Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

Lady Member                     Judicial Member                     President

*s