Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2016
Date of filing: 31.3.2016 Date of disposal: 06.12.2016
Complainant: Mr. Kanailal Chakraborty, S/o. Late Amulya Ratan Chakraborty, resident of Village: Nutandi, PO: Jorda, PS: Indpur, District: Bankura, PIN – 722 173.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, having its Regional Office at: Bhagirathi Complex, near Circuit House, Karamtoli, Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN – 834 001, represented by its Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Pension).
2. Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, Sub-regional Office, Red Cross Road, City Centre, Durgapur – 16, represented by its Regional Commissioner.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Debdas Rudra.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: None.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2: Shib Nath Das, Autho.Representative.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not grant his pension under Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 with effect from 20.07.2013 till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that he was Head Clerk of a private school, namely, Blue Bells School situated at Bawandigha, Jharkhand. He joined his service in the year 1981 and at the time of his joining it was not affiliated under any Board. Thereafter during his service tenure the said school got affiliation from CBSE Board, Delhi. Before affiliation the Complainant was under the coverage of the scheme of Provident Fund. He was under Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 bearing member ID no-JH/RAN/0007347/0000007. The Complainant joined the current establishment of Employees’ Pension Scheme on 01.04.1996 and got retirement from the said service on 14.05.2010 at the age of 50 years due to his serious illness. After his retirement from his service he went to the office of the OP-2 for getting information of his PF pension and the OP-2 told him that the PF pension of the Complainant would start on and from the year 2013 i.e. after completion of 58 years of him. The Complainant sent an application (10C) to the OPs in the month of January, 2013 requesting them to open PF pension as early as possible because he and his family members have been suffering from acute financial crisis. After receiving the application the OP-1 sent a letter dated 31.01.2013 stating that with reference to the application the OP-1 enclosed a computerized scheme certificate bearing no- JH/RAN/00004092 to be acknowledged by the Complainant. The Complainant on 20.08.2013 made an application for monthly pension in the form 10D (EPF) after observing all the formalities as per requirement of the OPs and the OPs received the said application on 09.09.2013 and assured the Complainant that the monthly pension will start as early as possible. Thereafter the Director of Blue Bells School sent a letter through speed post dated 16.12.2013 to the OP-1 stating that as per requirement of the OP-1 three photographs (attested) has been enclosed with the application of the Complainant for their kind information to process the monthly pension of the Complainant. After completion of all official formalities from the part of the Complainant, the OP-1 sent a letter dated 28.01.2014 mentioning that the application in the form No- 10D has duly been received from the eligible member/claimant with the IDS duly approved by the A.O. for issuance of PPO from the end of the OP-2 and the member has sought for withdrawal of pension from the bank which is falling under the jurisdiction of the OP-2 and so the OP-1 advised the Complainant to wait for further communication from the APFC(Pension) at Regional Office/Sub-regional Office/Sub-Accounts Office at West Bengal, Durgapur regarding pension matters of the Complainant and for obtaining the pension payment order. Upon receipt the said letter the OP-2 sent a letter dated 26.02.2014 to the Complainant requesting to furnish some documents duly attested by the ex-employer of the Complainant for processing of the monthly pension. The Complainant sent all the documents to the OP-2 as per their requirement along with a letter dated 20.08.2014 and requested the OP-2 to grant his pension as early as possible otherwise he along with family members would be ruined due to financial crisis. It was also stated by the Complainant that he was not physically well and suffering from various diseases and ailments and due to financial crisis he was not in a position to bear the treatment cost. The OP-2 sent a letter dated 01.09.2014 to the OP-1 regarding settlement of EPS, 1995 pension in respect of the Complainant stating that the instant pension case could not be processed on the following ground i.e. ‘as per scheme certificate claim form 10D and IDS date of joining of the member is 01.04.1996. But in part B of pension worksheet past service up to 15.11.1995 had been mentioned as 3 years & 21 days which is contradictory’. So the OP-2 requested the OP-1 to clarify the same and re-submit the case and further request was made to the OP-1 to forward the claim in the F/10D along with other documents after clarification and further action would be taken on receipt of the same. But till date the OP-1 neither clarified the same nor took any proper step regarding the settlement of EPS, 1995 pension in respect of the complaint which clearly indicates gross negligence, carelessness, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-1. Moreover, the OP-1 did not bother to take any further steps for further processing to settle the EPS, 1995 pension in respect of the Complainant which also amounts to gross negligence, carelessness, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-2. As a result of which he and his family members are suffering from financial stringency and mental pain, agony and harassment. The Complainant sent a letter dated 03.11.2014 through speed post to the OP-1 requesting to arrange for rectification of paragraph 12(8) of the scheme certificate clarifying that the date of joining of the member is 01.04.1996 and the past service was 15.11.1995 i.e. past service to EPS member is 4 months 17 days (15.11.95 to 01.09.96). The Complainant also requested the OP-1 to correct the scheme certificate and forward the same to OP-2 for further processing of settlement of pension. But the OP-1 neither made any response to the request of the Complainant nor took any proper steps regarding rectification of para 12(8) of the scheme certificate which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-1. The Complainant also sent a letter to the OP-2 through speed post as reminder dated 13.03.2015 requesting to look into the matter earnestly and to settle the EPS, 1995 as early as possible. But till date the OP-2 did not take any proper step regarding settlement of the pension, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. On 31.07.2015 the Complainant again sent a letter to the OP-1 requesting to look into the matter for settlement of the pension, but no steps had been taken by the OP-1 in this connection till filing of this complaint which also reveals the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its behalf. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the service of the OPs and having no other alternative to get relief the Complainant has filed this complaint before this Ld. Forum praying for direction upon the OPs for granting pension of the Complainant under Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 with effect from 20.07.2013, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2, 00,000=00 due to mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 25,000=00 to him.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-2 by filing written version stating that the Complainant was a member under Employees Pension Scheme, who on 20.08.2013 made an application for monthly pension but the same could not be processed for want of some documents i.e. original scheme certificate, photo copy etc. the member joined under EPS 1995 on 01.04.1996 and the pension scheme EPS 1995 was introduced on 16.11.1995, hence the question of past service of the Complainant does not arise. But the past service in the scheme certificate shown by Ranchi Office as 3 years and 21 days and forwarded the same to SRO-Durgapur Office. The SRO-Durgapur due to above discrepancies a reference has been made to SRO Ranchi seeking clarification through letter dated 01.09.2014 and a copy of which was also forwarded to the Complainant. The claim form 10D for pension has been settled along with arrear for Rs.34,573=00 for the period from 21.07.2013 to 30.06.2016 and monthly pension. According to the OP-2 as the grievance of the Complainant has duly been redressed by the OP-2, hence the Complainant is not at all entitled to get compensation and litigation cost as sought for and this complaint has not merit. Therefore prayer is made by the OP-2 for dismissal of the complaint.
It is evident from the record that though the OP-1 upon receipt of the notice appeared before this Ld. Forum through its authorized representative, but has failed to file written version within the stipulated period for filing the same as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So this Ld. Forum was pleased to proceed with the complaint ex parte against the OP-1. On the date of final argument of this complaint the Op-1 was present through its authorized representative and wanted to submit written version, but as in the meantime 45 days has already been elapsed from the date of receipt of then notice by it, hence we were not in a position to accept the same. The said representative has made oral argument.
The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit and additional evidence.
We have carefully perused the record and documents filed by the Complainant and the OP-2 and heard argument from the contesting parties at length. During argument the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has fairly submitted that after filing the complaint and during its pendency the OP-2 has settled and granted the pension of the Complainant under Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 with effect from 20.07.2013 to 30.06.2016 by making payment of the arrear amount of Rs. 34, 573=00 for the said period along with monthly pension of Rs. 943=00 (minimum pension of Rs.1000/-) for the month of July, 2016. The Complainant has stated that he has no claim against the OPs in respect of the prayer no-(a) of the petition of complaint, but as the Complainant had to run from pillar to post for getting his legal and proper claim and ultimately he had to approach before the Court of Law for redressal of his grievance, he is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost from the OPs as sought for. It is further submitted that due to deficient service of the OPs he had to face financial stringency, mental pain and harassment for a prolonged period. The OP-2 has submitted that due to deficiency in service of the OP-1 the claim of the Complainant could not be settled before this litigation as the OP-1 did not remit the necessary papers and documents to the OP-2 for settlement of the pension amount of the Complainant. The OP-1 has accepted that there was delay for a considerable period for sending the documents to the OP-2 on its behalf.
Upon hearing from the parties we have noticed that admittedly due to deficiency in service and laches on the part of the OPs the Complainant had to suffer mentally and physically for a prolonged period. As the Complainant has successfully proved that there was deficiency in service on behalf of the OPs, hence in our view the Complainant is very much entitled to get compensation from the OPs and as by filing this complaint the Complainant had to incur some expenses, hence the Complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost from the OPs.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed on contest against the OP-2 and ex parte against the rest with cost. The OPs are directed to pay either jointly or severally a sum of Rs. 5,000=00 to the Complainant towards compensation due to harassment, mental pain and agony and to pay the litigation cost of Rs. 3,000=00 to the Complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the above-mentioned total amount of Rs. 8,000=00 shall carry penal interest @6% p.a. for the default period.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
