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

Amarjit Singh Ex.A-G-1(D), R/o Tewar Patewar, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Mohali (Punjab.)

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

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

2]      Food Corporation of India, through its General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Bay No.34-38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh.

3]      Provident Fund Organization through its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund, Organization Nidhi Bhawan, A2C, Sector 24, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida (U.P.).

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

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                             PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                        MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.Vinod Kumar Kanwar, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Santokh Singh, Counsel for Ops No.1 and 2.

Sh.Raj Kumar Syal, Counsel for Ops No.3 and 4.

PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant joined Food Corporation of India in the year 1972 and he retired on 31.12.2009 – Annexure - A. The complainant was a member of Provident Fund and Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.

                   It is the case of the complainant that while in service and also after retirement, he made a request to OPs No.1 and 2 to grant the family pension but it was not honoured despite the fact that he filled a Form 10-D which was sent by OP No.2 to OP No.1. A legal notice dated 23.3.2011 – Annexure B was sent to OPs No.1 & 2 but to no avail.  It is further submitted that due to non-payment of pension to the complainant for a long time, a great financial as well as irreparable loss has been caused to him and his family members. Hence, this complaint.  

2.                OPs No.1 & 2 filed joint reply. The factual matrix of the case regarding retirement of the complainant from their department has been admitted. It is stated that the complainant submitted his pension case through OP No.2 on 28/30th April, 2011, which was received by OP No.1 on 20.5.2011 and, thereafter, the process started. The pension case was submitted to OP No.3 on 19.10.2011, who returned it due to certain discrepancies in it. However, it is admitted that though the complainant was a member of Provident Fund and Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, but he did not submit proper pension papers, so FPS number was not allotted. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part and denying allegations made by the complainant, OPs No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

3.                OP No.3 (RPFC, Noida) filed reply stating, interalia, that the EPS Number of the complainant is UP/36784/10569. That in the instant case, the employer establishment OPs No.1 & 2 have failed to submit the contributions details, duly completed claim application, necessary returns/deposition details /proof etc. (Form-3PS), as such it was not possible to quantify the benefits payable to the complainant and thus OP No.3 is not liable to pay any interest thereon.  All other averments have been denied by OP No.3 with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

4.                OP No.4 also filed reply and submitted that the functions of OP No.4 (RPFC, Chandigarh) commence only when pension papers along with Input Data Sheet (IDS) is received in their Office (OP No.4) and in the present case, no such Input Data Sheet has been received from OP No.3. It is also submitted that the pension payment order (PPO) will be released to the complainant on receipt of pension papers along with IDS from OP No.3.  Denying any deficiency in service on their part as well as all other allegation, OP No.4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.                We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

7.                The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant was working as AG-1(D) with Food Corporation of India. He retired on 31.12.2009 – Annexure - A. The complainant was a member of Provident Fund and Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.   He further submitted that the complainant while in service and also after retirement made a request to OPs No.1 and 2 to grant the family pension but to no avail, despite of the fact that he filled a Form 10-D which was sent by OP No.2 to OP No.1.

8.                The learned Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 raised the arguments that the complainant submitted the pension papers through OP No.2 on 28/30th April, 2011, which was received by OP No.1 on 20.5.2011 and, thereafter, the process started. The pension case was submitted to OP No.3 on 19.10.2011, who returned it due to certain discrepancies in it. However, it has been conceded that the complainant was a member of Provident Fund and Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. It was lastly argued that due to non-payment of proper pension papers, the FPS Number was not allotted to him.

 9.                The learned Counsel for OPs No.3 & 4 contended that EPS Number of the complainant is UP/36784/10569. It was further submitted that OPs No.1 & 2 failed to submit the contributions details, duly completed claim application, necessary returns/deposition details /proof etc. (Form-3PS), so it was not possible to quantify the benefits payable to the complainant.  It was further submitted that the functions of OP No.4 commence only, when pension papers along with Input Data Sheet (IDS) is received in their office (OP No.4) and in the present case, no such Input Data Sheet has been received from OP No.3. It was lastly submitted that the pension payment order (PPO) will be released to the complainant on receipt of pension papers along with IDS from OP No.3. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.3 & 4.

10.              Vide zimini order dated 16.2.2012, it has been recorded that the learned Counsel for Ops No.1 and 2 submitted that pension papers/documents after completing all the formalities had been sent to OP No.3 on 13.2.2012 and OP No.3 has further forwarded the papers to OP No.4 on 14.2.2012 for release of pension.

11.              The perusal of the zimini order dated 7.3.2012 further makes it clear that the learned Counsel for Ops No.3 and 4 placed on record letter dated 29.2.2012 with regard to disbursement of pension sanctioned to the complainant under Employees Pension Scheme 95.

12.              The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the pension has been released to the complainant w.e.f. 15.12.2007 as per letter dated 29.2.2012, therefore, the complainant is entitled for interest, compensation and litigation costs.

13.              Ops No.1 and 2 opposed the said arguments on the ground that since the complainant did not cooperate properly with Ops No.1 and 2 and did not submit the correct papers, so the FPS number could not be allotted.

14.              The said limb of arguments is not available to the learned Counsel for Ops No.1 and 2 as they have failed to place on record any evidence to prove that the complainant did not cooperate properly with Ops No.1 and 2. To prove the fact that the complainant did not submit the correct papers, there is not an iota of evidence. Thus, the defence raised by the learned Counsel for Ops No.1 and 2 that FPS Number could not be allotted as the complainant did not cooperate and also did not submit the correct papers goes to the ground.

15.              Admittedly, the complainant retired from service on 31.12.2009. It is the allegation of the complainant that he made a request to Ops No.1 and 2 while in service as well as after retirement to grant him family pension but the said request was not honoured. To counter the said allegation, the Ops No.1 and 2 had not adduced any evidence.

16.              The Ops No.1 and 2 has raised the plea that the complainant submitted his pension case through OP No.2 on 28/30th April, 2011, which was received by OP No.1 on 20.5.2011. The pension case was submitted to OP No.3 on 19.10.2011, who returned it due to certain discrepancies in it. The Ops No.1 and 2 had not produced any evidence on the file to prove that the complainant submitted the pension papers through OP No.2 on 28/30th April, 2011 which was returned due to certain discrepancies in it, therefore, we are of the opinion that in the absence to prove the said assertion with evidence, the said defence is not available to Ops No.1 and 2.

17.              It is also a fact that the pension was sanctioned to the complainant vide letter dated 29.2.2012 under Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The present complaint was filed on 21.10.2011. Thus, it is apparent that the pension has been sanctioned in favour of the complainant after the filing of the complaint. Thus, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation costs.

18.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation, within one month, failing which OPs are liable to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization, besides costs of litigation.

19.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned.