Karnataka

StateCommission

A/30/2021

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.Shivanna - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

25 Sep 2023

ORDER

                                                               Date of Filing:12.01.2021      

                                                              Date of Disposal:25.09.2023

 

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

 

DATED:25.09.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL No.30/2021

 

 

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Regional Office

Peenya,

Bengaluru  – 560 022.                                                       Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

 

-Versus-

Sri N  Shivanna

S/o Nanjappa

Gulur, Gulur at Post

Tumkur Tq.

Tumkur District.                                                            Respondent 

(Mr T Ramaiah, Advocate)

                                                :ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 73 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by JDr/OP aggrieved by the Order dated 13.11.2020 passed in Execution Petition No.30/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumakuru (for short, the District Commission).

 

2.       Heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels on Record.

 

3.       During the course of arguments both the Counsels submitted their Written Arguments.

 

4.       In this Appeal, Appellant has taken a stand that District Commission has erroneously taken the date of exit of the Respondent as 18.02.2006 instead of 05.02.2006 and failed to take into consideration that the Non-contributory period of 1460 days which is 4 years which cannot be considered for calculation of the pension; failed to note that the Respondent in his calculation has failed to deduct the non-contributory period, taken the period as 10 years instead of 6 years and failed to deduct the deduction for return of capital of Rs.114/-. Without any basis, District Commission come to the conclusion that non-contributory period is not worthy of acceptance.  Further pleaded that the pension arrears from February 2006 to December 2019 combined totalling to Rs.34,824/- which when deducted from amount deposited a balance of Rs.15,176/- has to be directed to be refunded to the Appellant instead the Commission has erroneously directed the Appellant to pay a further amount of Rs.9,133/-.  Therefore, District Commission does not have jurisdiction to direct the Appellant to calculate the pension against the provision of its scheme as well as the orders of the State Commission.

 

5.       The contention of the Respondent is that the Appellant has preferred the Appeal No.1540/2013 on 05.10.2013 against the order dated 30.09.2013 passed in CC No.51/2013 and same was dismissed on 09.01.2017 by this Commission.   Being aggrieved by this Order, Appellant has preferred Revision Petition No.823/2018 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and the same was disposed off on 08.08.2019 on point of limitation. On dismissal of Revision Petition No.823/2018, Respondent has filed EP No.30/2014 before the District Forum for execution of the order.  The District Forum after considering the memo of calculation filed by both the parties passed its order on 13.11.2020 and directing the Appellant/JDr has to pay Rs.9,133/- to the D.Hr.

 

6.       Perusal of the records reveals that the present Appeal is preferred, after the District Forum had passed it’s considered detailed Order in Execution Petition, by examining the Memo of Calculations filed by both the parties held that J.Dr is liable to pay a sum of Rs.9,133/- to D.Hr.

 

7.       In such circumstances, the District Commission is directed to re-examine the dispute raised by the Appellant in this Appeal and execute the award in accordance with the provisions of Law.

 

Notwithstanding anything, permitting the litigating parties, to get their bone of contention resolved through Conciliation/Mediation or through Lok Adalat, if they desire so and in any case dispose off the matter within the next 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order, since the Complainant/Respondent has been litigating for the past 7 years, possibly for a paltry sum.

 

8.   With the foregoing observations, the Appeal No.30/2021 hereby stands disposed off.

 

 

 

*

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

         

 

                                                       President

*s