This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to pay<br /> <br /> 1. Interest ofRs.627378/- @ 8, 5 % from 1.4.2006 to 18.4.2006 and interest of this sum @ 18% FROM 18,4,2006 till its realisation.<br /> 2. .The interest on the amount of Group Insurance Policy delayed for payment @ 9% and interest @18% till its realisation.<br /> 3. Interest on the amount of Family Benefit scheme @ 18% and Rs.10000/- for damages with cost.<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant in brief are as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant Smt.Vimala was HSA retired from Govt.Girls High School, Payyannur. In spite of repeated request her legitimate claims were not settled in time and there by complainant suffered heavy loss and hardship. The amount of GPF a sum of Rs.6,27,378/- standing to the credit of Smt.Vimala was payable on the due date 31.3.2006, the date when she quitted the service. But the amount was delayed for 18 days for payment. It was paid only on 19.4.2006. Due to the delay of payment Smt.Vimala suffered a loss of Rs.2814.49 as on 19.4.2006. By way of interest @ 8,5%, which is the prevailing rate and Rs.938/- as consequential damage estimated @ 18% Thus the complainant was entitled to for Rs.3752/- as compensation and damages. The opposite parties 2 and 3 are personally liable for this amount since this delay is suffered due to the deficiency of service. So also in the case of Group Insurance Scheme the final withdrawal was delayed 3 months which caused a loss of Rs.1949/- calculated at the prevailing rate of interest 9%? The settlement has to be made on 30.4.2006 but it was settled only on 12.10.2006. 10.7.2006 was the sanctioning day and sanction was reached to the office of GHS, Payyannur on 18.7.2006. So that she is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1949/- @ 9% interest of Rs.21656/- together with consequential damage @ 18% on 1949/-. There is severe breach of contract committed for the settlementof FBS account. The complainantis entitled for 18% interest and Rs.10,000/- for damages with cost.<br /> After issuing notice opposite parties 2 and 3 appeared. Opposite party No.2 filed version contending as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is not a consumer. So that the complaint is not maintainable. She further contended that there is no deficiency on the part of the office of the Govt.Gilrls High School or on her side in allowing the retirement benefit of the complainant. The complainant retired from service on 31.3.2006. Letter of Accountant General, finalizing the GPF was received in the office on 28.3.2006. It was directed in the letter to disburse the amount on or after 1.4.2006. The Treasury bill book for the year 2006-07 received on 5.4.06. Salary bill of the employees were submitted on that day and cashed on 9.4.2006. She could not submit the GPF Bill on 10.4.2006 due to the engagement of salary distribution. The following 2 working days the Headmistress on charge was seen on leave. The GPF amount was cashed and given to the complainant on the very next working day. Hence there is no substance in the averment of the complainant. The intimation with respect to Group Insurance scheme was reached to the office but the service book of the complainant was already sent to Deputy Director of Education on 3.6.2006. The service book received back on 7.10.2006. The Group Insurance amount could not be withdrawn on 18.7.2006. Since the service book was not available in the office. There was a reference in the order to record the details before withdrawing the amount.. After receiving service book the amount was withdrawn on 12, 10.2006 and disburse to complainant. 2nd opposite party further contended that in the service book the details regarding the membership and nomination was not seen recorded, when it was examined after receiving it on 7.10.2006. These facts were intimated to complainant. /A complaint was received with respect to the Family Benefit scheme amount and the same was replied in time. A letter was sent to complainant enquiring about the records relating to option and nomination in the previous school GHS South Thrikaripur and a reply received on 5.12.2006. Since it was admitted by the complainant that those records of membership and nomination the matter is being submitted to special Secretary, Finance Dept.,Thiruvananthapuram. Reminder was sent on 8.1.07. So the allegation deficiency has no substance.<br /> <br /> On the above pleadings the following issues are raised for consideration:-<br /> 1, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties 2 and 3?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed in the complaint. If so what is the quantum?<br /> 3. Relief and costs?<br /> ISSUES 1 to 3:<br /> The evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the complainant and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A were marked on the side of the complainant.<br /> The complainant, Smt.Vimala, High School Asst., retired from her service in the year 2006. On going through the evidence on record it has been seen that the retirement benefit of complainant namely GPF, GIS and FBS are delayed for the disbursement. In the case of GPF the amount stands to the credit of complainant was payable on 31.3.2006 but it was paid on19.4.2006. It is true that there were 18 days delay. But the explanation given by 2nd opposite party that authorization reached the office on 28.3.2006.2nd opposite party also contended that the treasury bill book for the financial year 2006-07 was received by the Head Mistress on 5.4.06. On that day itself she submitted salary bill of the employees on the institution and the same was cashed on 7.4.2006. For want of time due to disbursement of salary, the Head Mistress couldn’t submit the GPF bill. Following 2 days the Head Mistress was on leave. Therefore next day on 18.4.2006 the amount was disbursed to the complainant. 2nd opposite party Smt.Thankamany was took charge only on 2.6.2006. In the above discussion we are of the opinion that though there is delay in disbursing the amount of GPF to the complainant 2nd opposite party cannot be held liable, especially when considering the fact that she had been taken charge as Head Mistress only on 2.6.2006.<br /> As far as Group Insurance scheme is concerned, it can be seen that there are 3 months delay. The settlement would have been done on 30.4.2006.But it was settled on 12.10.2006. It is admitted by 2nd opposite party that the proposed sanction order reached the office on 18.7.2006. Opposite party No.2 in her version contended that the service book was not available since it was sent to Deputy Director of Education in connection with pension. Since the Deputy Director is not made as a party to the proceedings one cannot jumping to conclusion that the service book was sent to DDE unnecessarily though Head Master was the custodian of the service book. Hence 2nd opposite party cannot be held liable for the delay caused for payment of Group Insurance amount.<br /> In the question of FBS as per rule 14 of FBS on the retirement, of the employee coming under the scheme the actual amount subscribed by him together with the government contribution will be paid to him. If so the complainant is entitled to for the amount on 30.4.2006. There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay on payment. The reason stated by the opposite party is that there was no option statement and nomination in the service book. No provision seen preventing the settlement of Family Benefit scheme on this ground. Once there is enrolment to this scheme the subscription will be deducted regularly from the salary. More over pension is sanctioned only on close examination of all the relevant documents including, GPF,GIS, FBS etc. In this case no trouble faced by the complainant for sanctioning of pension. That shows all the documents inrespect of service is found correct. Thus it can be very well assumed that it is not because of fault that found or not found in the records but because of deficiency on the part of 2nd opposite party that the delay caused in disbursing the FBS amount. There is severe breach of contract committed for the settlement of FBS account. So that 2nd opposite party is liable for the delay for the period from 1.4.2006 to 4.3.2008 to FBS amount of Rs.9596/-. The 3rd opposite party is exonerated from the liability since he is only a subordinate to 2nd opposite party. Thus we are of the opinion that for the interest of justice 2nd opposite party is liable to pay 18% interest for the period from 1.4.2006 to 4.3.2008 for Rs.9596/-. There after interest @ 12% till date of payment. Complainant iws also entitled forRs.250/- as cost. Thus the issue No. 1 and 3 are found partly favorable to the complainant.<br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party No.2 to pay interest @ 18% for the period from 1.4.06 to 4.3.2008 for Rs.9596/- and for that amount at the rate of 12% till date of payment with cost of Rs.250/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the 2nd opposite party under the provisions of the consumer protection Act.<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> President Member Member<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1.Copy of the letter dt.9.11.06 sent to OP2.<br /> A2.Copy of the letter dt.10.11.06 sent by OP2 tocomplainant.<br /> A3.Copy of the letter dt.16,11,06 sent to OP2.<br /> Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil<br /> Witness examined for either side:Nil<br /> <br /> /forwarded by order/<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.<br />