DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sat Pal son of Sh. Brij Lal, resident of H.No.340, Sector 12-A, Panchkula.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Food Corporation of India through General Manager (Punjab), Food Corporation of India, Opposite Tribune Building, Sector-31, Chandigarh

2.                 Food Corporation of India through Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sirhind Road, Opposite New Grain Market, Patiala

3.                 Food Corporation of India through Executive Director (North), Food Corporation of India, Zonal office (North), Plot No.1A & 2A-B, Sector 24, Noida.

4.                 Provident Fund Commissioner, Near GPO, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Manmohan Singh, counsel for the complainant

                        None for OPs No.1 to 3.

                        Sh. Ajay Singla, Counsel for OP No.4.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Sat Pal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

i)                   To fix the family pension

ii)                To pay all the arrears alongwith interest

iii)              To pay compensation of Rs.1 lac towards.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he retired as Assistant Grade-II (PP) on 30.11.2007 from the Food Corporation of India on attaining the age of superannuation.  He was member of Family Pension Scheme with FPS No.29857 and CPF No.9337.

                   According to the complainant, before his retirement he submitted the requisite documents to opposite Party No.2 for fixation of family pension. Opposite party No.2 forwarded the same to opposite party No.3 vide letter dated 25.10.2007. However, Opposite party No.3 delayed the case till 2.9.2009 when the case was finally sent to the Head office of the Food Corporation of India and the same was returned to opposite party No.3 with some objections on 19.11.2009.  It has been averred that opposite party No.3 again delayed the matter and sent the objection letter on 31.12.2010 only. The complainant immediately submitted the requisite documents but again opposite party No.2 forwarded the same after much delay on 25.12.2011 only.  According to the complainant, due to the act of the opposite parties his family pension could not be fixed and the same amounts to deficiency in service.

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

3.                           In their written statement opposite parties No.1 to 3 have admitted that the complainant retired from their office on attaining the age of superannuation.  It has also been admitted that the complainant submitted the papers for fixation of family pension which were forwarded to opposite party No.3 vide letter dated 25.10.2007. However, as there were certain discrepancies in the papers, the same were returned.  It has been averred that after receipt of correct papers, the same were again sent to opposite party No.3 on 25.12.2011.  It has been denied that there was any delay on the part of the opposite parties.  According to opposite parties No.1 to 3, the matter was delayed because of fault of the complainant of not submitting the complete papers.  It has been pleaded that the pension claim has been settled finally by the RPFC Wazirpur Delhi on 18.6.2012.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                           Opposite party No.4 in its separate written reply averred that the complainant did not submit his claim form in its office to claim family pension.  Therefore, there was no delay on its part.  It has been averred that most of the allegations in the complaint pertain to opposite parties No.1 to 3.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                           On 26.2.2013, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 3. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act (as amended upto date) even in the absence of opposite parties No.1 to 3.

6.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, ld. Counsel for opposite party No.4 and have gone through the documents on record.

7.                           From the bare perusal of the facts detailed above, it is apparent that the complainant had submitted the papers well within time and before his retirement.  However, opposite parties No.1 to 3 took more than three years in finding that the papers are not complete.  So, vide letter dated 31.12.2010 the complainant was informed and was asked to complete the papers.   Admittedly, the complainant submitted the said papers soon thereafter. But, despite that, the complete papers were not sent to opposite party No.4 for release of the family pension.   This fact is apparent from the reply filed by opposite party No.4 wherein it has been mentioned that the pension papers have not been received in its office.   Opposite parties No.1 to 3 have not placed on record any document to prove that the complete papers of the complainant were ever sent to opposite party No.4. 

8.                           Still further, opposite parties No.1 to 3 in para 7 of their reply have pleaded that the pension claim has been finally settled by the RPFC Wazipur, Delhi on 18.6.2012 and forwarded to APFC, SRO Karnal (Haryana).  Though a copy of the letter dated 18.6.2012 was sought to be annexed by opposite parties No.1 to 3, yet the same was not placed on record for which an adverse inference needs to be drawn against them.  

9.                           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties No.1 to 3 are definitely deficient in giving proper service.  Hence we direct that opposite parties No.1 to 3 shall immediately hand over the complete papers of the complainant to Opposite party No.4 within 15 days of the receipt of certified copy of this order.  Thereafter opposite party No.4 shall release the pension within 30 days from the receipt of complete documents from opposite parties No.1 to 3. Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

i)                   Opposite parties No.1 to 4 shall release the pension amount alongwith interest @ 9% from the respective dates it became due. The interest shall be payable by Opposite parties No.1 to 3.

ii)                Opposite parties No.1 to 3 shall pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.

iii)              Opposite parties No.1 to 3 shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

10.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties No.1 to 3, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i)&(ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum, till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

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

Announced

28.2.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER