KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 484/09
JUDGMENT DATED: 05-08-2010
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund,
Organisation,
Sub Regional Office,
V.K. Complex,
Fort Road, Kannur.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. K. V. Karmachandran )
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1. N. Damodaran,
Maniyambara House,
Moyan Road,
Kannapuram Desam,
Cherukunnu P.O.,
Kannur District.
2. The Secretary,
Irinave Weavers Industrial
Co-operative Society,
Irinave P.O.,
Cherukunnu P.O.,Kannur District.
Thrissur - 1
(R1 rep. by Adv. Sri. N. Anilkumar.)
JUDGEMENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The order dated 14th July, 2009, in O.P. 126/05 of C.D.R.F. Kannur is being assailed in this appeal by the first opposite party who is under directions to reconsider the complainant’s claim and sanction the Eligible Member Pension taking into account 10.6.1943 as the date of birth of the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of the order with cost of Rs. 500/-
The complainant’s case before the Forum was that he joined in the Kannapuram Weaver’s Co-operative society in the year 1990 and thereafter he was shifted to Irinav, Weavers Industrial Co-operative Society in the year 1995 and that though he had applied for pension, the same was not sanctioned on the ground that his date of birth was not 10.6.1943, and that it was 1.8.1941. It was his further case that though he had given documents to the opposite parties regarding his correct date of birth as 10.6.1943 , the opposite parties refused to give pension stating that he had not completed 10 years of service for enabling him to get pension.
Alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed against the Provident Fund Authorities and the employer wherein was prayed that the opposite parties be directed to give him pension.
Though notice was sent to both opposite parties, the second opposite party did not appear before the Forum. The first opposite party filed version contenting that as per the E.P.F. Pension Rules the complainant must have a minimum of 10 years of eligible service at the time of retirement. It was submitted that at the time of joining, the second opposite party , Society, the complainant was at the age of 55 as on 1.8.1995. It was also submitted that when the complainant submitted the application in Form 10D, for Monthly Member Pension, the same was returned/rejected since he had no minimum eligible service of 10 years on the date of attainment of 58 years. It was the further case of the first opposite party that though the complainant had produced a certificate showing that his date of birth was 10.6.1943 the same was sent for verification and after verification it was found that the date of birth was altered in the register of the school where from the complainant had obtained the certificate showing that his date of birth was 10.6.1943. It was further submitted that the opposite party rejected the application since the complainant failed to produce any valid documentary evidence to substantiate his age regarding the date of birth. Contenting that there was no deficiency of service, the first opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as pw1 and a witness as pw2. Documents A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the complainant. On the side of the opposite parties the Enforcement Officer in the Employees Provident Fund Organization was examined as Dw1, and Exts. B1 to B11 were marked. It is based on the said evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order.
Heard both sides .
The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is unsustainable on the ground that it was without proper appreciation of evidence before it that the direction to give monthly pension to the complainant taking into account his date of birth as 10.6.1943 was issued. It is argued by him that for enabling the complainant to get pension he must have a minimum eligible service of 10 years on attaining 58 years. It is also his case that on verification of the school, register regarding the date of birth and date of exit from the school, the inspector appointed by the appellant had found serious discrepancies and that it was only at the time of getting pension that the respondent/complainant had approached the appellant/first opposite party with the correction in the date of birth. The learned counsel advanced the contention that the complainant had manipulated the documents in order to make him entitled for the pension and the Forum below had gone wrong in accepting and approving the documents produced by the respondent/complainant.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below and argued before us that the Forum below had appreciated the legality, veracity, and sustainability of the documents produced by the complainant/respondent. It is submitted by him that it was only a mistake in recording date of relief from the school as 1.6.1952 by the Headmaster of the school. It is further submitted by him that a correction certificate was given by the same headmaster showing that the date of relief from the school is not 1.6.1952 which was given due to the oversight and that the correct date is 1.6.1954. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the said correction certificate has been properly proved before the Forum by examining the person who issued the certificate. Thus he canvassed for the position that the order of the Forum below is to be upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs.
On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the first respondent/complainant we find that it is not disputed by any of the parties that the complainant was a member of the E.P.F. Scheme or that the complainant had not given a certificate showing that his date of birth was 10.6.1943. It is found that the appellant/ opposite party has taken a stand that after having made some enquiries regarding the certificate produced by the complainant it was found that there was a discrepancy regarding the date of leaving from the school. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that on verification it was found that there were some corrections. However in the certificate only the order of relief is wrongly written and it was subsequently corrected as 1954 and the same has been proved by the complainant by examining pw2 who has issued the certificate. Even though he has been cross examined by the opposite parties nothing could be brought out to contradict the statements of pw2 that as per the school records the date of birth of the complainant is 10.6.1943 and his date of leaving from the school is 1.6.1954. The said witness has also denied the case that there were corrections in the school register. We have also gone through the case records and found that there is a copy of the School Register (R7) in which the date of birth of the complainant is 10.6.1943 and the date of leaving the school is 1.6.1952. However we have found that the complainant had examined the Headmaster who issued the correction certificate and it is observed that apart from the date of leaving the school, the opposite parties have not raised any dispute regarding the date of birth of the complainant though it is argued that there seems to be a correction in the date of birth. On an appreciation of the entire case records and on going through the order we find that the Forum below has appreciated all the relevant facts of the case and has passed the order directing the opposite parties especially the first opposite party to sanction the pension of the complainant on the basis that the date of birth of the complainant is 10.6.1943 though the learned counsel for the appellant argued at length that the date of birth is 10.6.1941. We do not find any cogent material before us to find that the date of birth of the complainant is 10.6.1941. In the absence of evidence on the side of the opposite parties and in the presence of supporting material on the side of the complainant, we find that the Forum below has passed the impugned order which is only to be sustained.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. The order dated 14.7.09 in O.P. 326/05 of CDRF, kannur is confirmed. The appellant is directed to give pension to the complainant as early as possible and in the facts and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE. K. R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
