Date of filing : 18.10.2016.
Decided on : 20.02.2019.
JUDGEMENT
Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This consumer complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Smt. Anita Hela against the above named O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows :-
Surendra Hela, since deceased, the brother of the complainant was an employee of O.P. No. 3. O.P. No. 3 used to deduct money from the salary of the complainant for depositing the same in the P.F. Account of the complainant. On 07.12.2013 Surendra Hela died leaving behind the complainant and her two brothers as his legal heirs and successors. After the demise of Surendra Hela, the complainant and other two brothers applied for getting gratuity benefits of Surendra Hela and O.P. No. 3 paid such benefits of gratuity in favour of the complainant and other two brothers. In order to get pension the complainant on several occasions went to the office of the O.Ps. but in spite of request the O.Ps. did not take any steps for payment of pension to the complainant. Complainant therefore served a notice to the O.Ps. but there was no fruitful result. Hence the complaint praying for directing the O.Ps. to make payment of monthly pension to the complainant and for an order of compensation and cost.
All the O.Ps. appeared in this case after receiving the notice of this case. O.P. No. 1 & 2 also filed W/V but subsequently they did not appear to contest this case. O.P. No. 1 also did not file W/V and did not appear to contest this case. Hence the exparte hearing against all the O.Ps.
POINT FOR DECISION
Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
To prove her case the complainant has tendered her written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit in evidence and she has also filed all relevant documents. After going through the petition of complaint, the written examination-in-chief of the complainant and the documents filed by her it appears to us that the complainant herself has admitted that her elder brother Surendra Hela died leaving behind her and other two brothers as legal heirs. She has also admitted that they all have received all death benefits of Surendra Hela from the O.Ps. Now by filing the present complaint the complainant has prayed for directing the O.Ps. to make payment of monthly pension to her. She has not impleaded her other two brothers who are admittedly the legal heirs of Surendra Hela as complainant in this case. She has also filed no documents to show that she alone is entitled to get pension as legal heir of Surendra Hela. It thus appears that the present complaint is bad for defects of parties in as much as the other two legal heirs of Surendra Hela have not been impleaded as complainant in this case. Therefore the present complaint is not maintainable and as such it is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
it is,
O R D E R E D
that the Complaint Case No. 343/2016 is dismissed exparte without cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
( Bibekananda Pramanik )
President, D.C.D.R.F., Howrah.