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

====

Manmohan Singh s/o Sh.Gurbachan Singh retired Manager (Depot) Food Corporation of India, Chandigarh, r/o H.No.1047, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.

                                                        …..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

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

        2.     Executive Director (North) Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Plot No.1A & 2A and 2B, Sector 24, Noida (UP).

        3.     Regional Provident Commissioner, Near GPO, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                                     PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                 MEMBER

DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person.

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

                        Sh.R.S.Chauhan, Proxy Counsel for Ms.Neetu Prashar, Counsel                           for OP No.3.

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.                 In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was working as Manager (Depot) in Food Corporation of India, Chandigarh. He retired on 30.11.2007. It is further the case of the complainant that he was member of Family Pension Scheme under registration No.FPS 2258 and CPF No.10541 and was entitled to family pension on retirement. All the formalities and application forms were filled up/completed and sent to appropriate authority vide letter dated 13.6.2007 before the retirement but the Ops did not fix the family pension. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 7.3.2011 but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.             OPs No.1 & 2 filed the joint written statement. It is admitted that the complainant is entitled for family pension. It has been pleaded that the pension papers of the complainant were forwarded by his Controlling Officer to OP No.2 vide letter dated 13.6.2007 and OP No.2 further forwarded the case to headquarter vide letter dated 12.8.2009 but the headquarter of answering Ops vide letter dated 8.9.2009 pointed out certain discrepancies in the papers with regard to the date of birth certificate of Ruby Singh. The intimation was sent to the complainant but he failed to submit the requisite papers, due to which, the case could not be processed. The complainant submitted the requisite documents vide letter dated 30.4.2011 and, thereafter, the pension case was resubmitted to OP No.2. OP No.2 forwarded the pension case to the headquarter of answering Ops and the headquarter sent the same to OP No.3 vide letter dated 17.11.2011. The matter is pending with OP No.3. It has been further pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint costs has been made. 

3.                OP No.3 filed reply, wherein, it has been pleaded that no pension claim form has ever been received. It has been pleaded that the complainant should have collected form No.   10-D and delivered the same in the office of OP No.3. The complainant himself is under a mistake by not submitting the pension claim papers in its office. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the complainant in person, the learned Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and the proxy Counsel for OP No.3 and perused the record. 

6.             It was submitted by the complainant that he retired as Manager (Depot) from the office of Food Corporation of India, Chandigarh on 30.11.2007. He was a member of Family Pension Scheme, so he was entitled to family pension on retirement. He completed all the formalities but the OPs did not fix his family pension.

7.             The learned Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 raised the arguments that the pension papers of the complainant was forwarded by OP No.1 to OP No.2 vide letter dated 13.6.2007 – Annexure P-1 and OP No.2 further forwarded the same to the headquarter vide letter dated  12.8.2009 but the headquarter vide letter dated 8.9.2009 (Page No.9) pointed out certain discrepancies in the papers with regard to the date of birth certificate of Ruby Singh (3 copies). The intimation was sent to the complainant but he failed to submit the requisite papers, due to which, the case could not be processed. The complainant submitted the requisite documents vide letter dated 30.4.2011 and, thereafter, the pension case was resubmitted to OP No.2, who in turn, forwarded the same to the headquarter of OPs No.1 and 2 and the headquarter forwarded the same to OP No.3. vide letter dated 17.11.2011.

8.             During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 placed on record the letter dated 16.1.2012, qua which, the pension of the complainant has been fixed/finalized. The complainant submitted that since his pension has been fixed after filing of the complaint by the OPs, therefore, he is entitled for compensation and litigation costs.  

9.             The complainant also submitted that his pension papers were forwarded vide letter dated 13/14.6.2007 – Annexure P-1 but till the filing of the complaint, his pension has not been finalized/fixed. He further made a reference to page No.8 annexed with the reply of OPs No.1 & 2 which indicates that the pension documents were forwarded by OPs No.1 & 2 on 12.8.2009, so there is a delay of two years, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10.           On the other hand, the learned Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 made a reference to page No.9, the letter dated 8.9.2009, qua which, the complainant was asked to supply the date of birth certificate of Ruby Singh - 3 copies and Form No.8 (PS) w.e.f. 1980-81 to 1994-95. It was further contended that the complainant supplied the said documents and, thereafter, the same were sent on 1.10.2009 to the quarter concerned as is clear from page No.10 annexed with the reply. It was lastly argued that the case of the complainant was considered without any delay and has been finalized on 16.1.2012. Thus, there is no delay on the part of Ops No.1 and 2 in settling the pension case of the complainant.  

11.           Undisputedly, the pension case of the complainant has been settled by the OPs after the filing of the complaint, therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation costs. Under the given situation, we do not feel the necessity to go in further details of the matter on merits.

12.           As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is partly 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% on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization, besides costs of litigation.

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