BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Raghubir Singh Dhillon, Ex-Manager,  (Gen.), Village Daffarpur, P.O.mubarikpur, Tehsil Derabassi, Distt. Mohali, Punjab.

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1.        Food Corporation of India through Zonal Manager (North) Food Corporation of India, Plot No.A2A, A2B, Sector 24 Noida (UP).

2.        Food Corporation of India through General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bays 34-38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh.

3.        Provident Fund Organization, through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Nidhi Bhawan, A2C, Sector 24, Gautam Budh Nagarh, Noida, UP

4.        Provident Fund Organization, through Regional Provident Commissioner, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

                                        ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL             PRESIDING MEMBER

                MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Vinod Kumar Kanwar, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv. for OPs 1 & 2

Sh. Raj Kumar Syal, Adv. for OPs 3 & 4.

PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

               Briefly stated, the complainant was working as Manager (General) with the Food Corporation of India and retired as such on 31.12.2009 while being posted with OP-2.  He was a member of the employee’s pension scheme and was entitled for pension under EPS 1995 from 1.01.2007 on attaining the age of 58 years.  Prior to the retirement, he submitted all the requisite papers for the grant of pension which were forwarded by OP-2 vide their letter dated 31.12.2008 to OP-1 who forwarded the same to OP-3 but despite lapse of two years no response was received. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.                In their written reply OPs 1 & 2 admitted the factual matrix of the case but it has been denied that the complainant completed all the formalities. It has been submitted that the complainant after becoming eligible for pension applied and submitted form 10-D and other papers on Dec., 2008 i.e. after a period of about 12 months and the OPs immediately forwarded the same to DGM (CPF) FCI, Noida vide letter dated 30.12.2008 who after due process submitted the same to the Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida vide his letter dated 27.4.2010 but the same were returned by the OP-3 to FCI Zonal office Noida.  The Zonal office after due process forwarded the papers to OP-3.  It has been submitted that the main reason for delay in submitting papers was due to refusal by the OPs 3 & 4.  It has been pleaded that since pension was to be fixed by OPs 3 & 4, therefore, there was no claim against them.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.                OPs 3 & 4 in their separate written reply submitted that the complete pension papers of the complainant were received from OP-1 on 30.4.2010 which were immediately processed and issued PPO along with arrears on 16.7.2010. Pleading that there has been no delay or deficiency in service on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6.                It is admitted that the pension case of the complainant was forwarded to OP-1 vide letter dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure-I).  It remained pending with the OP-1 for about 28 months when he woke up and sent it to OP-3 on 27.4.2010 (Annexure –II).  Thereafter OP-3 kept the papers for about 3 months till the pension was released to the complainant.  The ld. counsel for OPs 1 & 2 has argued that the delay was on the part of OP-3 as they stopped accepting the pension papers of the employees on the ground that there was  rush with them and they were unable to deal with the cases.  We do not agree with the contentions of the OP because the delay was only on the part of OP-1 as they kept the pension papers of the complainant with them for about 28 months. Nothing has been placed on file by OP-1 to prove as to on what date and through which means, the said papers were sent to OP-3 and OP-4 before 27.4.2010.

The perusal of Annexure-II clearly shows that there was a delay on the part of OP-1 and not on the part of OP-3 and OP-4 because the pension papers of the complainant were sent to OP-3 and OP-4 by OP-1 after 28 months i.e. on 27.04.2010. Further there is no document to show if the pension papers of the complainant were ever sent to OP-3 earlier to 27.4.2010 or they refused to accept the same.  The OP-1 has not been able to produce any documentary proof/evidence to prove that the pension papers of the complainant were sent to OP-3 before 27.04.2010. The main delay was only the part of OP-1 in submitting the pension papers of the complainant after 28 months on 27.04.2010. 

7.                It is, therefore, clear that OP-1 is the real culprit in delaying the disposal of pension case of the complainant. The pension papers of the complainant remained pending with them for about 28 months and were sent to OP-3 on 27.4.2010 which they received on 30.4.2010. During this period, OP-1 did not bother about the miseries of the poor employee who after retirement was not getting any salary and the hope for getting pension was being dashed by OP-1.  They did not even consider that it may have been the only source of income for the complainant to maintain his family and in its absence the complainant may be suffering mentally and physically.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that in the present case OP-1 should pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,500/-. 

8.                We accordingly order that the above said amount shall be paid by OP-1 to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which they would be liable to pay the entire amount alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 24.02.2010 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.  The complaint against OPs 2 to 4 is dismissed with no order as to costs

9.                In order to safeguard the interest of the organization, it is ordered that OP-1 would be free to recover the above said  amount alongwith interest and costs from the salary of the officer(s)/official(s) due to whose inaction the matter was delayed, of course after giving notice to the concerned employee(s) as required under the relevant service rules. 

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.