By Smt.Saji Mathew, Member:<br /> <br /> The gist of the complaint is as follows:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant had been working in the 3rd opposite parties estate from 1967 as per KR 237/2375. She was made permanent in 1971 May. The complainant retired from the 3rd opposite party's plantation in 1999. During the period when she joined the service, the family<br /> (Contd......2)<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> pension scheme was not introduced. In 1972, the family pension scheme was introduced. As per the scheme 83% of provident fund amount which was contributed both by the employer and employee goes to the pension scheme. The notification in 1995 confers the benefit of the scheme to the entire labourers. The complainant claims that she is automatically enrolled to the scheme as she joined service before the introduction of the scheme. She states that she had been remitting a fixed amount from her wages to the provident fund scheme through the 3rd opposite party. Yet the 3rd opposite party omitted to inform the complainant with regard to the family pension scheme. She does not get the pension only because of the omission on the part of the 3rd opposite party. All co-workers get pension and she who toiled for 38 years in the 3rd opposite party estate, didn't get the benefit. The complainant sent option form to the 1st and 2nd opposite party on 6.7.2004 through the 3rd opposite party. It was not considered instead sent back to the complainant. So there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is to be enrolled to the family pension scheme and allowed compensation of Rs.10,000/-. <br /> <br /> The opposite parties filed version upon their appearance. The 2nd opposite party stated that the complainant is not a member of the family pension scheme 1971 since membership in that scheme was optional for those persons who joined the provident fund scheme 1952 prior to the introduction of family pension scheme 1971. The membership under the employees pension scheme 1995, even though is compulsory for those who were already members of the Employees family pension scheme 1971, it was optional for those who were not the members of the said scheme. The complainant had joined the provident fund scheme 1952 with code No. KR/KK/237 2375 on 1.1.69 and settled the provident fund<br /> (Contd.......3)<br /> <br /> -3- <br /> account on 20.08.1999. She exercised her option to join the employees pension scheme only in July 2004 that is after the settlement of her provident fund account. Since the complainant had not submitted the option form during appropriate time she is not eligible for membership under the pension scheme and also for the benefits provided there under. The complainant could have exercised the option before the settlement of her provident fund out of which she claims pension. There is no provision in the scheme for option after settlement where as the provision to the contrary are very much clear. Here the amounts in full on her credit in the provident fund has been settled and received by the complainant. So the complainant is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,000/-. The 3rd opposite<br /> party state that the pension scheme was widely published in the newspapers and also put up in the notice board of the estate, informed at the muster where workers an present them self and also to the members in unions. Even the husband of the complainant has exercised his option to join the pension scheme at the appropriate time and had been eligible for it. It is<br /> total false to say that she was not informed of the scheme or did not opt for the scheme <br /> due to he fault and negligence of the 3rd opposite party. The complainant had consciously availed the full amount of the provident fund when she superannuated voluntarily. she had filed the option form much after the retirement and settlement of provident fund. The third opposite party forwarded the option letter in June 2004 to the provident fund authorities and they rejected it. No relief is claimed against the 3rd opposite party. Hence the third opposite party states that the complaint is to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> The matters to be considered are as follows:-<br /> 1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 2. Any order as to compensation.<br /> (Contd.....4)<br /> <br /> -4-<br /> The complainant gave evidence as PW1 and her husband was examined as PW2. The Ext.A1 to A 7 were marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the courier receipt of the documents send to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A2 is the Photostat copy of the letter sent to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A3 is the copy of the application by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A4 is the copy of forwarding letter by the 3rd opposite party. Ext. A5 is the service details of the complainant given by the 3rd opposite party. Ext.A6 is the copy of pension scheme application given on 6.7.2004. Ext.A7 is the copy of reply from the 2nd opposite party. Opposite Party No.3 has given evidence as OPW1.<br /> <br /> <br /> The Employees family pension scheme 1971, specifies that option should be given for the scheme by those persons who are members of Employees provident fund before the<br /> commencement of this scheme (S.4). Here in the complaint itself, the complainant has stated that she had not given any option for the pension scheme. It is testimonied that the complainant's husband Kunhayammu had availed the benefit of the pension scheme and it is not correct to state that the complainant was not informed about the scheme. The ignorance of law is not an excuse. There is no latches on the part of opposite parties to make an option for the pension scheme of the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer in relation to the 3rd opposite party, there is not deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. Moreover on receiving the amount of provident fund, on settlement the right of membership is detached. Further it is seen that the complainant had not remitted any<br /> <br /> (Contd.....5)<br /> <br /> -5-<br /> amount to the pension scheme. The Complainant had settled her provident fund amounts in full. So she has no right to claim the benefits of the pension scheme. Hence the complaint is dismissed. However no order as to costs.<br /> Pronounced in the open forum on 23rd day of October 2007.<br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER : Sd/-<br /> <br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witnesses for complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1 Pathumma complainant<br /> <br /> PW2 Kunhayammu Retired Worker<br /> <br /> Witnesses for Opposite Parties:<br /> <br /> OPW1 Manager, Harrison<br /> Malayalam Plantation Opposite party No.3 <br /> <br /> Exhibits for complainant:<br /> Ext.A1 Courier receipt dt: 9.7.04<br /> Ext.A2 Photostat copy of the letter dt: 6.7.04.<br /> Ext.A3 Copy of application dt: 6.7.04.<br /> Ext.A4 Copy of forwarding letter dt:6.7.04.<br /> Ext.A5 Service details dt: 6.7.04.<br /> Ext.A6 Copy of pension scheme application dt:6.7.04.<br /> Ext.A7 copy of reply letter dt: 23.6.04. <br /> Exhibits for opposite parties<br /> B1 Option form dt: 29.05.2000.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD.<br />