Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1687/2017

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manjunath - Opp.Party(s)

Nalini Venkatesh

09 Feb 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :07.08.2017

Date of Disposal :09.02.2023

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:09.02.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH: PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL Nos.1687/2017 to 1697/2017

 

 

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan

Regional Office

No.13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road

Post Box No.25146

Bengaluru-560 025                                                       Appellant

(By Mrs Nalini Venkatesh, Advocate)

(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)

 

      -Versus-

 

1. Appeal No.1687/2017

     Mr Manjunath
     Aged about 63 years,
     No.7, New No.13, 7th Cross,
     Swimming Pool Extension,
     Malleshwaram,
     Bengaluru – 560003                                               Respondent
 

2. Appeal No.1688/2017

     Mr V S Somanath Rao
     S/o Mr V Suryanarayana Rao,
     Aged about 62 years,
     R/at No.418/A, Kumarakrupa,
     12^th Main Road, 1^st Block,
     Manjunathanagar,
     Bengaluru – 560010                                              Respondent

3.  Appeal No.1689/2017

     Mr S B Wannur
     Aged about 74 years,
     R/at No.1776/B, IV Cross,
     10^th & 11^th Main, Prakashnagar,
     Bengaluru – 560021                                             Respondent
                                                         

4.Appeal No.1690/2017

     Mr Anjappa Chetty
     S/o Mr Govindappa,
     Aged about 61 years,
     R/at No.1080,

     BTM 1^st Stage,
     14^th Main, 7^th Cross,
     Tavarekere,
     Benagaluru – 560029                                          Respondent
     (By Sri S S Nagaraj, Advocate)

 

5.Appeal No.1691/2017

     Mr Govinda Raju H K,
     S/o Mr Hanumantharayappa,
     Aged about 61 years,
     Kadabagere Post,
     Tavarekere,
     Bengaluru – 562130                                          Respondent
 

6. Appeal No.1692/2017

     Mr T R Viswanatha
     Aged about 68 years,
     R/at No.810, 3^rd Stage,
     BEML Layout,
     Rajeshwarinagar,
     Bengaluru – 560098                                                  Respondent

7. Appeal No.1693/2017

     Mr Nataraju
     Aged about 72 years,
     No.524, Shivakrupa,

     I C Cross, 3^rd Stage,

     4^th Block, Basaveshwarnagar,
     Bengaluru – 560079                                                   Respondent
 

8. Appeal No.1694/2017

     Mr Ashok S Bentur
     S/o Mr SanammallappaBentur,
     H No1303, I Phase,

     V Main, V Cross,

     Rajarajeswarinagar,
     Bengaluru – 560050                                                Respondent

9. Appeal No.1695/2017

     Mr Lingachary M,
     S/o Mr Mallachari,
     Aged about 62 years,
     No.85, III Main Road,
     Sanjeevini Nagar,

     Mudalpalya,
     Bengaluru.                                                                Respondent
     (By Sri S S Nagaraj, Advocate)

 

10. Appeal No.1696/2017

      Mr G S Shivaram
      S/o Mr Siddaramaiah
      Aged about 62 years,
      No.35, Sri Madhu Nivas,
      4^th Cross, Kalidasa Layout,
      Srinagar, Bengaluru – 560050                                 Respondent

11. Appeal No.1697/2017

      Mr Thimmarayappa B
      S/o Late Beerappa
      Aged about 61 years,
      10^th A Main, 11^th Cross,
      33^rd Division, Viratnagar,
      Bommanahalli,
      Bengaluru – 560068                                                Respondent

         

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by OP aggrieved by the Order dated 30.11.2016 passed in Complaint Nos.2482/2013, 2483/2013, 2487/2013, 2489/2013, 2496/2013, 2495/2013, 2499/2013, 2512/2013, 2514/2013, 2520/2013 and 2500/2013 respectively on the file of IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels for Appellant and Respondents in Appeal Nos.1990/2017 and 1995/2017. It is observed that Notice on Respondents has not been returned in the following cases and also the fact that no step has been taken by the Appellant in Appeal Nos.1687 to 1689/2017, 1691 to 1694/2017, 1696/2017 and 1697/2017, taking into consideration, the vintage of the cases and age of the Respondents, yet again, as a special case, the service of notice in the above cases has been dispensed with to avoid further delay.

3.       At the outset, let us examine whether the Complainants are entitled for re-fixation of pension by adding 2 years of weightage and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP?

4.       In this regard, we also take note of the following service particulars details of each of the Complainants on record, as hereunder:

Appeal No.	Complaint No.	Date of Birth	Date of retirement	Past Service	Actual service	Age on Retirement
1687/2017	2482/2013	15.06.1950	28.02.2001	23	5	51
1688/2017	2483/2013	22.10.1951	21.10.2009	14	13	58
1689/2017	2487/2013	01.05.1939	30.04.1997	19	1	58
1690/2017	2489/2013	01.06.1952	31.05.2010	17	14	58
1691/2017	2496/2013	12.02.1952	11.02.2010	18	13	58
1692/2017	2495/2013	17.11.1945	30.11.2002	21	07	58
1693/2017	2499/2013	09.01.1941	08.01.1999	19	03	58
1694/2017	2512/2013	08.09.1943	31.01.2001	18	5	58
1695/2017	2514/2013	15.08.1951	14.08.2009	18	13	58
1696/2017	2520/2013	10.12.1951	09.12.2009	08	14	58
1697/2017	2500/2013	08.06.1952	07.06.2010	12	14	58

 

On Perusal of contents of the Table, it reveals that the Complainants in Appeal Nos.1687/2017, 1689/2017, 1692/2017 to 1694/2017 retired before 24.07.2009 and complied either of the condition of Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995, while Complainants in Appeal Nos.1688/2027, 1690/2017, 1691/2017, 1695/2017 to 1697/2017 retired after 24.07.2009 and complied with both the conditions of Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995.  Hence, all the Complainants are entitled for the weightage of two years. With regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension, it is observed that the Complainants in Appeal Nos.1687/2017, 1689/2017, 1692/2017 to 1694/2017 retired from their service before 15.06.2007 and in Appeal Nos.1688/2017, 1690/2017, 1691/2017and 1695/2017 to 1697/2017 retired from their service after 15.06.2007 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before and after 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995.

 

5.       Thus, it is not in dispute that Respondent/Complainant in each of the case, during their service they joined the Employees PF Scheme; contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and continued to contribute subsequently to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995. It is also not in dispute that Appellant/OP revised the Pension and released the arrears to the complainants. On perusal of details of calculation of Pension produced by the Appellant, it is observed that they paid the arrears of Pension amount belatedly and that too after the Complainant raising their grievances.  It is pertinent to note from the document No.5 annexed to the Appeal Memorandum, it is not clear as to on which date they paid the arrears of pension to Pensioners.  Thus, in our considered opinion, certainly this act of Appellant amounts to deficiency in service.  In the circumstances, the Impugned Order directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to each of the Complainant is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference. The delay between 212 and 219 days in filing of all these Appeals by the Appellant is hereby condoned by considering the reasons assigned in Affidavit filed in support of the IA.

6.       With the foregoing observations, the Appeal Nos. 1687/2017 to 1697/2017 stands Dismissed.

 

7.       The statutory deposits in all these Appeals is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

*

8.       Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.1687/2017 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.

9.       Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

         

                                                                    President           

*s