DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No:581 of 2010]

                                                     Date of Institution : 09.09.2010

                                                         Date of Decision    : 03.06.2011

                                                          -------------------------------------------

Sh. Mohinder Pal, Ex. A.G.I (Depot) son of Late Sh. Gurdas Ram, Aged about 63 years resident of Village V.P.O. Bairsain, Distt. Nawanshahar (Punjab).

                                                          …..Complainant.

V E R S U S

1.    General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bay 34-38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh.

2.    Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, Plot No.A2A, A2B, Sector 24, Noida (U.P.).

3.    Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund, organization, Nidhi Bhawan, A2-C, Sector 24, Gutam Budh Nagar, Noida, U.P.

4.    Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh (Performa OP).

…..Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA           PRESIDENT

SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI        MEMBER

SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                MEMBER

Argued By:Sh. V. K. Kanwar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. N. K. Zakhmi, Advocate for OPs No.1 and 2.

                   Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate for OP No.3 and 4.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Mohinder Pal has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs: -

i)                   To hold and declare OPs guilty of deficiency in service as per the provisions of the Act.

ii)                 OPs be directed to settle the pension case of complainant along with interest @18% per annum thereon from the date of eligibility of pension till payment of the same.

iii)              OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony suffered by him.

iv)               OPs be directed to pay legal expenses to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was an employee of Food Corporation of India (hereinafter to be referred as FCI) and was posted as Assistant (Grade-I) in the office of General Manager, FCI at the time of superannuation. He was superannuated on 30.6.2006.

                   According to the complainant, he was member of Employees Pension Scheme having CPF No.23088 and F.P.S. Account No.19742 and was contributing for the said scheme. He was entitled for the pension under Employees Pension Scheme 1995 from 11.5.2004 on attaining the age of 58 years.

                   It is further pleaded by the complainant that he submitted all the requisite papers for the grant of pension under the said scheme, which were complete in all respects in January 2007. The said papers were forwarded by the employer to the Deputy General Manager (CPF), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (North), Noida in the month of March 2007. The said papers were resubmitted after removal of objections vide letter dated 17.4.2007 (Annexure B). It is pleaded that OP No.2 was required to forward the pension case to OP No.3 i.e. Regional Provident Fund Commission. As per the complainant, since more than 3 years have passed but nothing has been heard from any of the OPs. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notices dated 19.3.2010 on the OPs (Annexures C, D, E and F respectively). The case of the complainant is that despite submission of the required papers in the year 2007 with the authorities, neither his pension has been released so far nor any reason has been explained for withholding the same. Due to non payment of the pension, the complainant is facing financial difficulty, mental agony and harassment.

                   In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                In the reply filed by OPs No.1 and 2, it has been averred that there is no delay on their part. The delay, if any, is due to procedural formalities. Therefore, OPs No.1 and 2 are not liable to pay any interest to the complainant. It has been pleaded that the said papers were sent to Deputy General Manager (CPF), FCI Zonal Office (North), Noida vide letter dated 17/18.8.2006 (Annexure I), which were returned by the CPF Branch for want of Social Security Number. The said papers were again submitted after completing all the formalities to the CPF Branch (Zonal Office) vide letter dated 16.3.2007 [(as mentioned in letter dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure II)]. The papers were again submitted to OP No.2 vide letter dated 27.4.2007 , which were again returned by OP No.2 vide letter dated 20.10.2007 for want of Pension Form for allotting Social Security Number but the papers were not resubmitted by the OP No.1. As per these OPs, copies of all the letters/correspondence were supplied to the complainant but he did not approach the OPs for release of his pension and as such, kept mum for a period of about 3 years for the reasons best known to him. However, the complainant was requested vide letter dated 21/22.10.2010 (Annexure IV) to visit the office of OP No.1. The complainant visited the office of OP No.1 on 9.11.2010 and submitted the requisite documents vide letter 9.11.2010 (Annexure V), signed the pension papers, which were immediately sent by OP No.1 to OP No.2 vide letter dated 12.11.2010. It is next pleaded that the pension papers of the complainant would be forwarded by OP No.2 to OP No.3 shortly.  Therefore, according to these OPs, there is no delay on their part, so, the complaint deserves dismissal qua them.

4.                In the reply filed by OP No.3, it has been averred that till date, OP No.3 has not received any pension claim papers of the complainant and as such, no liability can be fastened on it. It is pleaded that OP No.3 is ready and willing to perform its part regarding the release of pension papers within the stipulated period and as per the procedure laid down in the Act. In these circumstances, it has been prayed that the complaint qua OP No.3 be dismissed. Similarly, OP No.4 did not play any role as the papers were firstly to be supplied by OP No.2 to OP No.3, which has not been done so far and subsequently, the same were to be forwarded by OP No.3 to OP No.4 for release of Pension Payment Order in favour of the complainant. 

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

6.             It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant was superannuated with effect 30.6.2006 vide order (Annexure A). It is also admitted that the pension papers were sent to OP No.2 i.e.Deputy General Manager (CPF), FCI Zonal Office (North), Noida vide letter dated 17/18.8.2006 (Annexure I), who returned the papers on 16.3.2007 i.e. after a period of almost seven months. It is not understood as to why such a long period of seven months was taken by OP No.2 in returning the pension case, which delayed in the release of the pension of the complainant. The papers were again submitted by OP No.1 to OP No.2 on 27.4.2007 after completing necessary formalities but the pension case was again returned on 20.10.2007 i.e. after six months. Here also, OP No.2 exhausted complete six months in putting further objections in the pension case. If any relevant documents were required from the side of the complainant, the same could have been told to the complainant at the time the papers were submitted earlier. There is nothing on record to prove any correspondence from the side of the OPs to inform the complainant regarding the status of his pension case or any objection to be cleared in a specific period. OPs No.1 and 2 have simply put whole of the burden on the complainant by saying that it is the complainant who was required to approach them to clear the objections. To our mind, it was the duty of OPs No.1 and 2 to intimate the complainant that his presence is required to meet some objections. No letter to this effect has been placed on record. OPs No.1 and 2 kept corresponding inter se and kept on sending the file to and fro just to harass the complainant. Initially it was their duty to complete the pension papers of the complainant and to send the same to OP No.3 for further action. But in this case, despite the fact that a period of more than 3 ½ years have expired, the case was not forwarded till the day this complaint was filed.

7.                Thus, there is a gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 2 in dealing with the pension case of the complainant.

8.                No allegations have been made against OPs No.3 and 4, so, to our mind, no liability can be put on these OPs (i.e. OPs No.3 and 4) to whom the papers have not been forwarded so far.  

9.                It is matter of great concern that even in the matters of grant of pension, the behavior of officials of OPs No.1 and 2 has been so apathetic and inconsiderate towards their own employees. Admittedly, the pension has not been released to the complainant so far and in our view, he has undergone immense agony and harassment at the hands of OPs No.1 and 2 besides financial losses for which, OPs No.1 and 2 are liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency in service on their part.

10.              In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed. However, compensation and cost of litigation shall be paid only by OPs No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. We pass the following order:-

(i)       OPs No.1 and 2 shall forward the pension papers of the complainant (complete in all respects) to OPs No.3 and 4 within one month and the latter will release the pension  along with the entire arrears of pension to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of papers from OPs No.1 and 2;

(ii)      OPs No.1 and 2 shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)     OPs No.1 and 2 shall also pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.

11.           This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2 as well as OPs No.3 and 4 jointly and severally within a total period of two months from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing OPs No.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.09.09.2010 till the date of actual payment besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation as also complying with the order as at Para 10(i) of the foregoings.

12.           It is also made clear in respect of OPs No.3 and 4 that as and when, they receive the pension case of the complainant, they will finalize the same and release the pension including arrears to the complainant in full within next 30 days from the date of submission of the pension papers by OPs No.1 and 2 to them.

13.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced.

3^rd June 2011.

Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Ad/-

C.C.No.581 of   2010

Present:    None.

                                                          ---

                   The case was reserved on 25.05.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned.

Announced.

03.06.2011       Member             President                Member