Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals bearing No.168 of 2011 titled as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & another Vs Lal Chand Bali & Ors and No.204 of 2011 titled as Zonal Manager (North), Food Corporation of India & another Vs Lal Chand Bali & Ors, against the order dated 9.5.2011, 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, in the following manner; “In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, which he suffered due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In addition to this, the OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.3.3.2010 till the date of actual payment, besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was posted as Assistant Grade I(D) in the office of the General Manager, Food Corporation of India (hereinafter to be called as FCI) at the time of superannuation, on 31.8.2009, at the age of 60 years. He was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme having CPF No.21453 and F.P.S. Account No.15104. He was contributing to the said scheme. Accordingly, he was entitled to pension under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, with effect from 1.9.2007, on attaining the age of 58 years. It was stated that the complainant submitted the requisite papers, complete in all respects, for the grant of pension, under the said scheme. These papers were forwarded by the Regional Office, FCI, Punjab, Chandigarh, to the Assistant General Manager (CPF), FCI Zonal Office (North), Noida, vide letter dated 26.11.2007. It was further stated that since then, the complainant had not received response from any of the OPs. It was further stated that the complainant had not been granted pension. Due to the non-payment of pension, the complainant was facing financial difficulty, and mental agony and physical harassment. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. 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 him. 3. OP Nos.1& 2, Zonal Manager(North) FCI, Noida, and General Manager, FCI, Chandigarh, in their joint reply, stated that there was no delay, on their part. It was further stated that the delay, if any, was on account of procedural formalities. It was further stated that they were not liable to pay any interest to the complainant. It was further stated that the delay was, on account of the conduct of the complainant himself, as he submitted Form 10D, in the month of Nov.2007, whereas, he was required to submit the same, before attaining the age of 58 years. It was further stated that the pension papers were sent to the Deputy General Manager (CPF), FCI Zonal Office (North), Noida, vide letter dated 26.11.2007, who after completing all the formalities, forwarded the same to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida, vide letter dated 8.11.2008. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida, returned the pension papers to the FCI Zonal Office, Noida, vide letter dated 10.9.2009, on the plea of non-fulfilling the criteria for settlement as per EPFO Head Office letter No.Pension/4/(197)/96/KR/3268 dated 17.4.2009. It was further stated that the Zonal Office, Noida OP No.1, after due process, sent the said papers again to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida vide letter dated 12.10.2009. It was further stated that the delay was on the part of OP Nos.3 & 4, as they returned the papers with frivolous objections. It was denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. OPs No.3 and 4, in their joint written reply, stated that, for the first time, the pension papers of the complainant were received, in their office, on 26.11.2008, which were not complete, in all respects, as the detail of contribution was lacking in the same. The claim papers were returned to OP No.1 on 10.9.2009, which were again resubmitted by it on 12.10.2009, without the mandatory details. In order to avoid hardship to the complainant, the claim papers were handed over to the officials of OP No.1, in person, on 29.1.2010, with the request to complete the same, so that the claim could be considered. It was further stated that, on receipt of the pension papers, in the month of March,2010, the claim was immediately processed, in accordance with the provisions of Employees Pension Scheme 1995, and a letter alongwith input data sheet, was sent to OP No.4, on 18.3.2010, for issuance of Pension Payment Order, in favour of the complainant. It was further stated that there was no delay, on the part of OP NOs.3 & 4. It was further stated that OP No.4, issued the Pension Payment Order, alongwith arrears of pension on 3.5.2010 vide annexure R10. It was denied that OP Nos.3 & 4, were deficient, in rendering service. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 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, in the opening para of the instant order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid two appeals were filed by the appellants/OPs. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants/OP Nos.1 & 2, in appeal No.204 of 2011, submitted that the complainant himself, was at fault, in submitting the pension papers, which were not complete, in all respects, very late. He further submitted that since the complainant himself, delayed the submission of papers, the appellants could not be blamed, for any delay, which occurred on account of completion of official formalities. He further submitted that the appellants dealt with the pension case of the complainant, as soon as, the same was received, in their office, and the District Forum was wrong, in fastening the liability upon them. 10. The Counsel for the appellants, in appeal No.168 of 2011 submitted that as soon as, the papers complete, in all respects, were received by the appellants, they took no time, in settling the claim. She further submitted that the appellants were wrongly held liable. 11. The Counsel for the complainant/respondent, submitted that there was gross deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the appellants, as a result whereof, inordinate delay, was caused, in settling the claim of the complainant. 12. It is evident, from annexure A, that the complainant retired on 31.8.2009, on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Annexure B, is a copy of the letter dated 15/26.11.2007, vide which the Deputy General Manager(Regional Office), FCI, Chandigarh, sent the family pension case of the complainant, complete in all respects, to the Deputy General Manager(CPF), FCI, Zonal Office(North) Noida, UP, for onward submission of the same to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida OP No.3. The zonal office of the FCI, for the first time, submitted the Family Pension papers of the complainant to OP No.3 vide letter annexure C dated 8.11.2008. The Zonal Office of the FCI at Noida, was required to send the pension papers of the complainant to OP No.3 immediately on receipt of the same from OP No.2. There was, thus, a delay of about 12 months in sending the papers to OP No.3, by OP No.1. Why OP No.1 sat over the matter, without considering the plight of the complainant, a retired employee of the FCI. Why OP Nos. 1 & 2 sat over the pension papers for about 12 months, before submitting the same, to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, is not at all explained. No doubt, a plea was taken by the appellants, that the pension papers were returned by OP Nos.3 & 4 with the frivolous objections of non-fulfilling the criteria for settlement as per EPFO Head Office letter dated 17.4.2009, but there is no explanation with regard to the period from 7.11.2007 when the claim papers were submitted, till 8.11.2008, when the same were sent to OP No.3 vide letter of the even date annexure C. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that OP Nos.1 & 2, were definitely deficient, in rendering service, by delaying the submission of pension papers, to OP Nos.3 & 4, for a period of about 12 months. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in appeal No.204 of 2011, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. Now coming to the liability of the appellants/OP Nos.3 & 4 in appeal No.168 of 2011, it may be stated here, that it was admitted by OP Nos. 3 & 4, that the papers were received by them on 26.11.2008, for the first time. The case of OP Nos.3 & 4, was to the effect, that since the papers were not complete, in all respects, the same were returned to OP No.1 on 10.9.2009, who resubmitted the claim without doing the needful on 12.10.2009. Thereafter, according to OP Nos.3 & 4 the pension papers of the complainant were handed over to the officials of OP No.1, on 29.1.2010. In case, the papers were not complete, in all respects, then why the officials of OP Nos.3 & 4 sat over the same, in the first instance, from 26.11.2008 to 10.9.2009 for a period of about 9 months. Copy of the forwarding letter was not produced, on record, vide which these papers were handed over to the officials of OP No.1. In Government Offices, everything is done, in black and white. Such a plea taken by OP Nos.3 & 4, does not appear to be correct. Again OP Nos.3 & 4, sat over the matter from 12.10.2009 to 7.5.2010 i.e. for a period of about 7 months, when ultimately, information was sent to the complainant that the PPO vide letter dated 7.5.2010 annexure R10 had already been issued. Once the papers were received by OP NOs.3 & 4 on 26..11.2008, and there is no document, on record, to show that these were returned to the officials of OP No.1 on 29.1.2010, it should not have taken such a long period of about 18 months by them, in all to settle the claim of the complainant. There was, therefore, deficiency, in rendering service on the part of OP Nos.3 & 4, as they caused delay of about 18 months in settling the Family Pension claim of the complainant. 14. As stated above, the complainant had already retired. The Family Pension may be the source of supplementing his income, to sustain his survival, and survival of his family members. The complainant was an official of the FCI. The officers/officials of OP Nos.1 & 2, did not take into consideration the plight of a retired employee. Even the officers/officials of OP Nos3 & 4, were apathetic, callous and indifferent towards the settlement of a genuine claim of family pension of a retired employee of the FCI. A lot of harassment and mental agony, occasioned to the complainant, on account of the aforesaid acts of all the OPs. Not only this, the complainant also suffered financial loss, as had the pension been released, in his favour, in time, he would have deposited the same in the bank and earned interest thereon, or utilized the same for meeting the necessary expenses. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that since the harassment and mental agony were caused to the complainant, at the hands of the OPs, he was liable to be compensated, though his pension claim was settled on 3/12.5.2010, after filing of the complaint. 15. It is settled principle of law, that compensation, should be just, fair and reasonable. In the instant case, in our considered opinion, the amount of Rs.50,000/- granted, as compensation, for physical harassment and mental agony to the complainant, by the District Forum, cannot be said to be unreasonable, unfair and unjust. Compensation granted, in this case, is commensurate with the physical harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant, at the hands of the OPs. 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, both the appeals bearing Nos.168 of 2011 and 204 of 2011 being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same are dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/- in each appeal. The impugned order of the District Forum 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 | , | |
