Karnataka

StateCommission

A/484/2020

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.R.Eranna - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haladipur

12 Jun 2023

ORDER

                                                                       Date of Filing : 10.08.2020

Date of Disposal : 12.06.2023

 

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

 

DATED:12.06.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

 

APPEAL No.484/2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office

No.13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road,

Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan,

Bengaluru – 560025.
(By Mrs Nandita Haladipur, Advocate)                                 Appellant

 

                             -Versus-

Mr G R Eranna
S/o Mr Rudrappa,

Aged about 69 years,

N0.19, C/o A H Mahesh,

Om Shakti Main Road,

5^th Cross, 3^rd Stage,

Sanjivininagar,

Hegganahalli Cross,

Bengaluru – 560091                                                           Respondent

(By Mrs Pushpa T S, Advocate)

         

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 31.01.2020 in Consumer Complaint No.1246/2018 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       This Commission heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels on record.

3.       Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the Arguments.

4.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP to revise the Monthly Pension of the Complainant from Rs.1,574/- to Rs.4,046/- and to pay the difference of amount Rs.2,472/- from 08.07.2006/01.08.2006 with interest at 6% p.a, to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost and litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Order. Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal.

 

5.       Perused the Impugned Order and grounds of Appeal.

6.       According to the Appellant, the Respondent had put in past service of 20 years and actual service of 11 years, revised the pension by granting weightage of 2 years, arrears of pension amount of Rs.9,352/- has also been paid on 31.01.2015 to the Respodent, but the District Forum has erroneously held that the Complainant/Respondent is eligible for total service of 34 years, including weightage of two years, which in fact the service of Respondent past service is 20 years and Pensionable Service is 11 years.

7.       The observation of the District Forum in Para 16 of its Order that the Complainant joined the service on 01.02.1975 and retired on 07.07.2006, i.e., Past Service of 20 years 9 months - rounded off to 21 years and Actual Service of 10 years 7 months - rounded off to 11 years, when taken into consideration, he has put in total pensionable service of 32 years.  Taking into consideration, the monthly salary of the Complainant at the time of retirement which is Rs.6,500/-, the calculation works out to Rs.6,500/- x 32+2/70, Rs.3,157.14 and the same is rounded off to Rs.3,157/- and when the same is added to the sum of Rs.889/- being the Pension for the past service, the same works out to Rs.4,046/-p.m and the Complainant is already drawing a monthly Pension of Rs.1,574/- after giving weightage of two years and thus the difference works out to be Rs.2,472/- p.m, which the Complainant is entitled to, from 08.07.2006/01.08.2006 onwards along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

8.       On perusal of the records, it is observed that the Appellant has been granted two years of weightage and revised the entitled Monthly Pension and also paid the arrears of Pension to the Complainant accordingly. The dispute is only with regard to the calculation of the service rendered by the Complainant and fixation of entitled monthly pension of the Respondent. Thus, there is a difference in accounting of the service rendered by the complainant. In view of the claims and counter-claims by the parties concerned, which is not authentically backed up by facts and figures, this Commission is of the considered opinion that it will be appropriate to remand the matter to the District Commission to provide opportunities to both the parties.

9.       Under the circumstances, the Impugned Order requires to be interfered with by remanding the matter to the District Commission. Accordingly, Appeal is allowed.  Consequently, the Impugned Order dated 31.01.2020 in Consumer Complaint No.1246/2018 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru is hereby set aside and matter is remanded to the District Commission to consider the case afresh, by affording an opportunity to both the parties and to decide the case in accordance with law, within three months from the date of this Order

10.     The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be refunded to the Appellant on proper identification by his Advocate.

 

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

 

 

                                                                      President

*s