Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.3.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint of the complainant(now respondent No.1) and directed OP Nos.1 & 2(now appellants) as under; “(i) OPs No.1 & 2 shall pay interest @9% p.a. on all the arrears of pension, payable with effect from the respective dates, when the same had originally become due for payment, but not actually paid, to the Complainant, till the actual date of receipt of the pension arrears by the Complainant i.e. 07.09.2010. (ii) OPs No.1 & 2 shall further pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing acute and most severe physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant, apart from financial losses for a period of about 09 years and still not paying the pension to her, despite her numerous requests and even serving a legal notice on them. (iii) OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the amount of interest, as well as compensation and litigation costs shall be paid by OPs No. 1 & 2, jointly and severally, to the Complainant from their office funds. Subsequently, OP No. 1 shall hold a full fledged departmental inquiry, so as to fix specific responsibility for the serious lapses and deficiencies on the part of erring official(s)/officer(s) and recover these amounts from their salary. Further, in case this process is not completed by the OP No.1 within a period of 03 months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order, the amounts in question shall be deducted from the salary of the Zonal Manager and credited to the Govt. account, accordingly. The compliance report be submitted to this Forum, within 05 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 45 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall, jointly and severally, pay the amounts of arrears of pension, as well as compensation sum, along with interest @18% per annum on the amounts as stated (i) and (ii) in the foregoing paras, with effect from the respective dates when the same had originally become due for payment, but not actually paid to the Complainant, till the date of realization, besides paying the costs of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that Late Sh. Satish Kumar Walia, husband of Smt. Kamini Walia, complainant was working as Assistant Manager (G) with OP Nos.1&2 (now appellants). He expired on 8.1.2001, while in service. He was a member of F.P.S. bearing Account No. 11593 and C.P.F. Account No. 6909. Soon after the sad demise of her husband, the complainant submitted Forum 10-D, alongwith all requisite documents, for release of family pension, on 28.6.2003, to OP No.2, which, in turn, sent the same to OP No.1, the Zonal Office. After submission of the date of birth certificate, IOG etc. the final payment of C.P.F. was released by the OPs on 28.3.2004. The papers relating to family pension of the complainant, continued to shuttle between different offices of the OPs, but the same was not granted to her. When the OPs delayed the matter, on one pretext or the other, the complainant served a legal notice on 16.3.2010, but no positive response, was made by the OPs. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to gross deficiency, in rendering service, and also indulgence into unfair trade practice. 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 by her, for a direction to the OPs to settle the pension case and to pay interest @18% p.a. from the date the pension became due, till the release of the same, besides an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs, as compensation, for mental agony & harassment, as also the litigation costs. 3. OP Nos.1 & 2, in their joint written reply, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the complainant had initially submitted her family pension papers on 28.6.2003 i.e. about 2 ½ years, after the date of death of her husband, on 8.1.2001. It was further stated that, on scrutiny, the papers were found to be incomplete. It was further stated that the complainant was contacted to complete the required formalities. However, on submission of the requisite documents, the case was submitted to OP No.3, by OP No.1, on 11.8.2010. It was further stated that the case of the complainant was a death case, and the same was processed, in the normal manner, as such like cases, are received by OP No.3, in routine. It was further stated that there was no delay on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2. It was denied that OP Nos.1 & 2, were deficient, in rendering service or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 4. OP No.3, in its written reply, while admitting the factual position, stated that there was no fault, on its part and, as such, the question of paying interest by it, did not at all arise. It was further stated that the case was received, in the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Delhi (North) on 13.8.2010. It was further stated that the family pension of the complainant had already been settled, by sending the pension papers, to the Regional Office, Chandigarh, on 26.8.2010, for issuing Pension Payment Order, to release the pension, to the complainant. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 5. OP No.4, in its written reply, while admitting the fundamental facts of the case, stated that EPS No. DL/2271/11593 was allotted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi, to the husband of the complainant. It was further stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.4. It was further stated that the pension papers were received by OP No. 4, as late as, on 3.9.2010, through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi and PPO No. 18303 was issued on 6.9.2010 i.e. within four days. It was further stated that the arrears of pension were released to the complainant on 7.9.2010. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 6. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint against OP Nos.1 & 2, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order, and dismissed the same against OP Nos.3 & 4. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellants/ OP Nos.1 & 2. 9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, no doubt,the husband of the complainant was an employee of the Food Corporation of India, who died on 8.1.2001. He further submitted that the complainant, who is the widow of Sh.Satish Kumar Walia, an employee of the appellants, submitted incomplete Form 10D, as provided under the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, on 28.6.2003 i.e. after a delay of 1 year and 7 months. He further submitted that CPF of the deceased was released to the complainant on 28.3.2004. He further submitted that, however, the case of the complainant for family pension remained under consideration of the appellants, as the formalities had not been completed by her. He further submitted that it took time to get the formalities completed, and only thereafter, the matter, was finally settled. He further submitted that there was no deliberate and intentional delay, on the part of the appellants, in settling the family pension case of the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ and, as such, the complaint was not maintainable. He further submitted that since the family pension had already been released, to the complainant, the District Forum committed an error in granting interest, as also compensation simultaneously. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, submitted that, she fell within the definition of ‘consumer’ as she was the beneficiary, in relation to the family pension, on account of the death of her husband, who was an employee of OP No.2. He further submitted that, no doubt, there was some delay, on the part of the complainant, in submitting the family pension papers to OP NO.2, in the first instance, yet that did not mean that, OP Nos.1 & 2, could delay the release of family pension, for years together. He further submitted that the family pension papers were submitted on 28.6.2003, to OP No.2, whereas, the pension was released on 6.9.2010 i.e. after a period of more than 7 years. He further submitted that the complainant was deprived of the family pension for a period of more than 7 years, as a result whereof, she suffered a lot of physical harassment, and mental agony. He further submitted that the family pension was the only source of income for the survival of the complainant, but callous attitude of the appellants, delayed the matter for more than 7 years. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 12. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereafter. Admittedly, the husband of the complainant, namely Sh.Satish Kumar Walia was an Asstt. General Manager(G) in Food Corporation of India. It is also an admitted case of the parties that he died, while in service, in the year 2001. Accordingly, the complainant, being widow of Sh.Satish Kumar Walia became entitled to the family pension. Undisputedly, she submitted the family pension papers on 28.6.2003 to OP No.2/appellant No.2, after completing all the formalities. It is evident that the family pension papers submitted by the complainant to OP No.2, were sent by it, to the Joint Manager(CPF), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office(North), Noida OP No.1 vide letter dated 18.7.2003 annexure C1. From 18.7.2003 upto 29.3.2004, these papers were kept by OP No1, as is evident from the letter annexure F dated 9.9.2005/12.9.2005. It appears that vide letter dated 29.3.2004, the papers were sent back by OP No.1 to OP No.2. It is further evident that on 15.2.2005 the papers were again re-submitted by OP No.2 to OP No.1. Reminder annexure F dated 9.9.2005/12.9.2005 was sent by OP No.2, to OP No.1, requesting OP No.1 about the fate of the case for grant of family pension to the complainant. During the next 1½ years, there was no response, whatsoever, from OP No.1. On 28.3.2007, OP No.1 informed OP NO.2, that they had not received the family pension case, of the complainant, and the same be sent once again. OP No. 2 again sent the family pension case in respect of the complainant to OP No.1, on 20.4.2007, vide letter annexure H. OP No.1 again raised some objections, vide letter dated 21.8.2007, saying that RPFC, Delhi was not accepting VRS cases, as also family pension cases of retired employees, except death FPS cases. Since the instant case related to the grant of family pension, on the death of an employee, it is not understood, as to what was the meaning of such a frivolous objection, and that too, having been raised after more than 4 years of submission of the family pension papers to OP No.1 in the first instance. It was, thereafter, that OP No.1, asked OP No. 2 to contact the District Office for completion of pension documents. No detail of the discrepancies and documents was intimated by OP Nos1 & 2 to the complainant. Since the settlement was not made, the complainant wrote letter to OP No. 2 on 13.5.2008, reminding it to look into the matter and, ultimately, served a legal notice dated 16.3.2010 asking the OPs, to grant her family pension which became due to her in the year 2001, but no positive response was given by OP NOs.1 & 2. Subsequently, left with no alternative, she filed the complaint on 25.5.2010. It was only thereafter, that on 6.9.2010, the family pension was granted, and later on, the arrears of pension were released in her favour. OP Nos.1 & 2, took about 9 years for the settlement of family pension of the complainant, widow of their ex-employee, who died in 2001. It is beyond imagination, that such a case, could take 9 years for settlement thereof. It speaks volumes of the callous and indifferent attitude adopted by the OPs, hardly taking into consideration the plight of the complainant, who may be having no other source of income, for survival except the family pension. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding, that the OPs were grossly deficient, in rendering service, by adopting dilatory tactics, in releasing the family pension, to the complainant for a period of 7 years, from the date of submission of papers, complete in all respects, and about 9 years from the death of her husband. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. 13. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant fell within the definition of ‘consumer’ or not. It may be stated here, that the answer to this question, is in the affirmative. The complainant is the beneficiary of the benefits which had accrued to her late husband. The case of the complainant, therefore, is clearly covered under Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Similar principle of law, was laid down in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad Versus Shiv Kumar Joshi and Babu Ram Joshi, 1994 (1) CPC 562 and Captain C.P. Gupta Versus Indian Airlines Provident Fund Trust, 2003(3) CLT 46 (NC). The submission of the Counsel for the appellants that the complainant did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ , being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 14. The next question that falls, for determination ,is, as to whether, the complainant was entitled to interest and compensation simultaneously or not. Interest @ 9% p.a., from the date when the amount of family pension became due, was granted to the complainant, as she was deprived of this amount for a number of years. Had this amount been paid to her, she would have deposited the same, in the bank, and thereafter earned interest thereon. The interest was, thus, rightly granted by the District Forum, for the financial loss, which was caused to the complainant, by OP Nos.1 & 2. 15. Coming to the compensation of Rs.one lac, which was granted by the District Forum, it may be stated here, that the same could be granted simultaneously, even if, interest had been granted to the complainant. Section 14(d) of the Act, entitles the consumer, to claim compensation and empowers the Consumer Fora to grant the same. Compensation was granted by the District Forum, to the complainant, for lot of physical harassment and mental agony caused to her at the hands of OP Nos.1 & 2. One can really envisage the plight of a widow lady, who had to wait for 7 years, after the submission of pension papers, complete in all respects, and about 9 years after the death of her husband for family pension. In Jagdish Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., 1994 (1) CPC 468; Karam Industries & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., IV (2007) CPJ 104 (NC); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bansal, II (2008) CPJ 186 (NC) and Paramvir Singh Vs P.H.Houses Pvt. Ltd. Revision Petition No.2779 of 2010 decided on 11.5.2011(NC) the Hon’ble National Commission allowed and maintained the grant of compensation, in which, the interest had also been granted on the amount claimed by the consumer. No doubt, compensation should be just, fair and reasonable. In the instant case, compensation of Rs.one lac, for harassing a widow lady, for a period of about 9 years and causing her mental agony, could not be said to be unreasonable, unfair and unjust. It, on the other hand, is just, fair and reasonable. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct are liable to be upheld. 16. The order rendered by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 17. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/-. The impugned order is upheld. 18. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 19. The file be consigned to Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
