STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 113 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 04.04.2012 | Date of Decision | | 01.08.2012 |
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Near GPO, Sector 17, Chandigarh. ……Appellant Versus 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 (U.P.). 3.Sh. Manmohan Singh son of Sh. Gurbachan Singh, Retired, resident of House No.1047, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh. ....Respondent(s) Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. Argued by: Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Santokh Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Sh. Manmohan Singh, respondent No.3 in person. PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.), PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.02.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties, as under:- “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.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was working as Manager (Depot) in Food Corporation of India, Chandigarh. He retired on 30.11.2007. He was a member of the Family Pension Scheme under registration No.FPS 2258 and CPF No.10541 and, as such, was entitled to family pension on retirement. All the formalities were completed by the complainant and the application forms duly filled in, were sent by him, vide letter dated 13.6.2007, to the Opposite Parties, before his retirement. They, however, did not fix his family pension. The complainant, thus, sent a legal notice dated 7.3.2011, but to no avail. It was stated that the act of nonpayment of family pension in time, to the complainant, amounted to deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed. 3. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint written version, admitted that the complainant was working as Manager (Depot) in Food Corporation of India, Chandigarh and he retired on 30.11.2007. It was also admitted that he was entitled to family pension. It was stated that the pension papers of the complainant were forwarded by his Controlling Officer to Opposite Party No.2, vide letter dated 13.6.2007. Opposite party No.2 further forwarded the case to the Headquarters, vide letter dated 12.08.2009. It was further stated that the Headquarters of the answering Opposite Parties, 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. It was further stated that the complainant submitted the requisite documents vide letter dated 30.04.2011, and, thereafter, the pension case was resubmitted to Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 forwarded the pension case to the Headquarters and the same was sent to Opposite Party No.3, vide letter dated 17.11.2011. It was further stated that the matter was pending with Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied. 4. Opposite party No.3, in its written version, stated that no pension claim was received by it. It was further stated that the complainant should have collected Form No.10-D and delivered the same, in the office of Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that the complainant himself was, at fault, by not submitting the pension claim papers, in its office. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint, were denied. 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to above, in the opening para of the instant order, by partly allowing the complaint and awarding compensation, to the complainant, on the ground that his pension case had already been settled by the Opposite Parties, in the meanwhile. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/Opposite Party No.3, has filed the instant appeal. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, respondent No.3/complainant, in person, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.3 submitted that there was no delay, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, in settling the pension case of the complainant. She further submitted that the pension papers of the complainant were forwarded to Opposite Party No.3, for the first time, vide letter dated 17.11.2011, by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. She further submitted that on 16.01.2012, i.e. within about two months, the pension case of the complainant was settled. She further submitted that the delay, if any, occurred, was in the Offices of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. She further submitted that, since, there was no delay, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, it could not be said to be deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant. It was further submitted that the District Forum was wrong in granting relief, against Opposite Party No.3/appellant. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum qua the appellant, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside. 10. The Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, on the other hand, submitted that the order of the District Forum, qua respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, has already been complied with. 11. Respondent No.3/complainant, could not refute the submissions of the Counsel for the appellant, that his pension papers were forwarded to the Office of Opposite Party No.3, by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, vide letter dated 17.11.2011, and, his pension case was settled by Opposite Party No.3/appellant, on 16.01.2012. 12. The question arises, as to whether, there was any delay, on the part of the appellant/Opposite Party No.3, in settling the pension case of the complainant or not? From the perusal of the evidence and record of the case, it is evident that the complainant submitted his pension papers alongwith the requisite form, duly filled in, to Opposite Party No.1, which forwarded the same to Opposite Party No.2 on 13.06.2007 vide Annexure P-1. Opposite Party No.2 further forwarded the pension case of the complainant, to the Headquarters vide letter dated 12.08.2009. It is not known, as to why Opposite Party No.2, kept the pension papers of the complainant, for more than two years, with it, before the same were returned on 08.09.2009, to Opposite Party No.1, as certain discrepancies were found, therein. It was the duty of Opposite Party No.2, to ascertain the discrepancies, if any, in the pension papers of the complainant immediately after the same were received and then send back the same to Opposite Party No.1 within the shortest possible time. There was also somewhat delay on the part of the complainant in submitting the requisite documents, which were asked for from him, by Opposite Party No.1. Major part of the delay, occurred in the offices of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Admittedly, the pension papers of the complainant were, for the first time, forwarded to Opposite Party No.3, vide letter dated 17.11.2011 by the Headquarters of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. There is also no dispute, about the factum that on 16.01.2012, the family pension case of the complainant, was settled by Opposite Party No.3. There was, therefore, no unreasonable delay on the part of Opposite Party No.3, in settling the family pension case of the complainant. Since, the action was taken by Opposite Party No.3, within the shortest possible time, and, it succeeded in settling the matter promptly, the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that Opposite Party No.3/appellant, was also deficient, in rendering service to the complainant. The order of the District Forum, holding Opposite Party No.3, jointly and severally, liable to pay the amount of compensation alongwith interest, thus, appears to be illegal and liable to be set aside. 13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant, Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2, and respondent No.3/complainant. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order of the District Forum qua Opposite Party No.3/appellant, is not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, and the same warrants interference. The order impugned is, thus, liable to be set aside, against the appellant. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.3, is accepted with costs, quantified at Rs.5,000/- to be paid by respondents No.1 and 2. The impugned order, holding Opposite Party No.3, as jointly and severally liable, is set aside. 16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced. August 01, 2012. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad
STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.113 of 2012) Argued by: Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Santokh Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Sh. Manmohan Singh, respondent No.3 in person. Dated: ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.3, has been accepted with costs, quantified at Rs.5,000/-, to be paid by respondents No.1 and 2. (NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
