The gist of the complaint is as follows: The complainant had been working in the 3rd opposite parties estate from 1966 as per KR 237/2115. She was made permanent in 1971 May. The complainant retired from the third opposite party's plantation on 1999. At the time when she joined the service , the family pension scheme was not introduced. In 1972, The family pension scheme was introduced. (Contd.......2) -2- As per the scheme 83% of provident fund amount was contributed both by the employer and employee to the pension scheme, which goes to the pension scheme. The entire estate employees come under the scheme by the presidents proclamation regarding the scheme. 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 third opposite party. Yet the third 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 third opposite party. All co-workers get pension and she who toiled for 39 years in the third opposite parties estate, doesn't get any. The complainant sent option form to the Ist and 2nd opposite party on 6.7.2004 through the third opposite party. It was not considered and rejected. So there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is prayer to enroll her to the family pension scheme and allow compensation Rs.10,000/- .The complainant gave evidence as PW1 and PW2 and PW3 were examined on the side of the complainant . The Ext.1 to 7 were marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the courier receipt for documents send to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A2 is the Photostat copy of the letter send 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 third opposite party . Ext.A5 is her service details at complaint given by the 3rd opposite party. Ext.A6 is the copy of option form given on 6.7.2004. Ext.A7 is the copy of reply from the 2nd opposite party. (Contd.....3) -3- The 3rd opposite party filed version, the second opposite party filed version for both first and second opposite parties. The 2nd opposite parties 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 members of Employees family pension scheme 1971, is 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 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 account which she had not done. As such she had not contributed a single paise either to family pension scheme or existing pension 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 complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,000/-. The 3rd opposite party state that the pension scheme was widely published newspapers and also put up in the notice board of the estate and informed at the muster where workers present them self and members union as well as, workers there of it. Even the husband of the complainant has exercised his first option to join the pension scheme at the appropriate time and has been eligible for it. (Contd........4) -4- It is total false to say that she was not informed of the scheme or did not opt for the scheme due to the fault and negligence of the third opposite party from . The complainant had consciously availed the full amount of the provident fund accumulation 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 third opposite party. Hence the third opposite party states that the complainant is to be dismissed. The matters to be considered are as follows:- 1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 2. Any order as to compensation or costs. 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 commencement of this scheme (S.4). Here in the complainant itself the complainant has stated that she had not given any option for the pension scheme. PW3 has stated that all the employees know about the scheme from the news papers and radio. So there is no grovel in stating that the complainant was not informed about the scheme. And ignorance of law is not an excuse for any omission on the part of the complainant to make option for the pension scheme. As the complaint is not a consumer in relation to the 3rd opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. In the complaint, the complainant (Contd......5) -5- states that she is ready to remit any amount, it necessary to the pensions scheme. It is clear that she had not remitted any amount to the pension scheme. She had settled her provident fund accounts in full. So the complainant has no right to claim the benefits of the pension scheme. In the absence of any option at appropriate time, or contribution from the employee, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties in denying the benefits of the pension scheme. Hence the complaint is dismissed. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD. APPENDIX Witnesses for complainant: PW1 Pathumma Complainant PW2 Balachandran Retired supervisor of OP PW3 Hassainar Haji Retired Supervisor Witnesses for opposite parties: OPW1 Surendran Enforcement officer EPF Organization Kalpetta. Exhibits for complainant: A1 Courier Receipt dt:9.4.04 A2 Photostat copy of the letter dt:23.6.04 A3 Copy of the application by the complainant dt:9.7.04. (Contd.......6) -6- A4 Copy of forwarding letter dt:6.7.04. A5 Service details of the complainant dt: 6.7.04 A6 Option form dt: 6.7.04. A7 Copy of reply from the 2nd opposite party dt: 6.7.04. Exhibits for Opposite parties: Nil. PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD.
