Karnataka

StateCommission

A/467/2020

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.Narayana - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

                                                                 Date of Filing : 04.08.2020

  Date of Disposal :06.04.2023

 

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

 

DATED:06.04.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL No.467/2020

 

 

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Regional Office

No.13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan

Bengaluru - 560 025                                                          Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

 

                 -Versus-

Sri. N.Narayana

S/o Nandeeshwaraiah

Aged about 60 years

No.35, Pramod Nilaya

Chowdappa Cocunut Garden

3^rd Cross, Hoskerehalli

Banashankari 3^rd Stage

Bangalore-560 085                                                        Respondent

                                                               

   : ORDER :

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, by OP aggrieved by the Order dated 31.01.2020 passed in Complaint No.1170/2018 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the Arguments.

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP to revise the monthly Pension of the complainant from Rs.2,008/- to Rs.2,680/- and to pay the difference of amount Rs.672/- from 18.05.2015/01.06.2015 with interest at 6% per annum, to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost and litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.    Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal.

 

4.       On perusal of the records, it is observed that Appellant has been granted two years of weightage and the monthly pension of the complainant has been revised accordingly.

5.       The dispute is only with regard to the service rendered by the complainant and fixation of entitled monthly pension. According to the Appellant, the Respondent had put in service of 25 years, which includes weightage of 2 years granted, which in fact there is non-contributory period of 1410 days hence, the past service being of 4 years 4 months 25 days and pensionable service is of 19 years 6 months 2 days, to which the non-contributory period of 1410 days equal to 3 years 10 months 10 days has to be subtracted and eligible service will be 20 years 17 days. 

6.       The observation of the District Forum in Para 16 that the complaint retired on 31.05.2015 i.e., past service is 5 years 6 months rounded off to 6 years and actual service 22 years 6 months rounded off to 23 years when taken into consideration he has put in total pensionable service 29 years.  Taking into consideration, the salary of the complainant at the time of retirement is Rs.6,500/-, Rs.6,500/- x 25/70, which works out to be Rs.2,321.42 and the same is rounded off to Rs.2,321/- and when added the same to a sum of Rs.359/- per month being the past pension, the same works out Rs.2,680/-. Complainant is already drawing Rs.2,008/- after giving weightage per month. The difference works out to be Rs.672/- per month which the complainant is entitled to from 18.05.2015 onwards along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

7.       On perusal of the Annexure-C and D annexed to the Appeal memorandum, it is observed that the Appellant has calculated the monthly pension of the complainant as per Para 12 and it is observed that under the Head Calculation of pension in column II a) and c) the Appellant has calculated the salary of the pensioner at Rs.6,500/- & in b) calculated the salary of the pensioner at Rs.7,629/- and accordingly, fixed the monthly pension of the complainant at Rs.2,008/-.   It is relevant to make mention of the fact here that Appellant has made the complainant average salary at Rs.7,629/- as Pensionable salary calculated according to the date of attaining the age of 58 years of the pensioner and it is not clear that why the Appellant has calculated the monthly pension of the complainant twice at Rs.6,500/- and Rs.7,629/- at once as pensionable salary in column II under a), b) and c).  In this context, there is a difference in accounting of the service rendered by the complainant.  Further as to how 1410 days have to be considered under NCP and the mode of arrival monthly pension by the Appellant and the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum.

8.       In view of the claims and counter claims by the parties concerned which is not authentically backed up by facts and figures, this Commission is of the considered opinion that it will be appropriate to remand the matter to the District Commission and to provide an adequate and ample opportunities to both the parties.

9.       Under the circumstances, impugned order requires to be interfered with by remanding the matter to the District Forum. Accordingly, Appeal is allowed.  Consequently, impugned Order dated 31.01.2020 passed in Complaint No.1170/2018 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru is set aside and matter is remanded to the District Commission to consider the case afresh, by affording an opportunity to both the parties and to decide the case in accordance with law, within three months from the date of this order

10.     The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be refunded to the Appellant.

 

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

 

                                                                      President

*s