Karnataka

StateCommission

A/27/2018

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Narasimha Murthy.C.S. - Opp.Party(s)

Nalini Venkatesh

21 Mar 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :05.01.2018

Date of Disposal :21.03.2023

 

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

 

DATED:21.03.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL No.27/2018

 

 

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)

 

-Versus-

 

Sri Narasimha Murthy C S

S/o Late C Subba Rao

Aged about 62 years

Old Address “Degula”

Ganapathy Nagar

9^th ‘A’ Cross

12^th Main, Girinagar

Byatarayanapura

Bengaluru-560 026                                                        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 11.10.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.1259/2015 on the file of II 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 Counsel for Appellant. Notice on Respondent has been returned un-served and no further necessary step has been taken by the Appellant. Hence, by taking into consideration, the vintage of the case and the age of the Respondent, as a special case, the service of Notice in this case has been dispensed with, to avoid further delay.  Hence, the arguments of Respondent is taken as heard

3.       The Appellant/The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has contended that he has revised the pension of the Complainant by adding two years of weightage under Para 10 (2) of EPS Scheme 1995 from Rs.1,145/- to 1,289/- and arrears of Rs.17,409/- has been released in the month of September 2016 itself.   The District Forum without taking into consideration of this fact, allowed the Complaint and erred in concluding that there is deficiency in service on the part of Appellant.   Thus seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.

 

4.       On Perusal of the records it reveals that the District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part, directing the OP to pay Monthly Pension of Rs.1,943/- with retrospective effect from the date of retirement, arrears of Rs.798/- p.m from the date of retirement till Revised Pension is paid and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant.

5.       Admittedly, complainant is an employee of M/s Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd., and retired from the service on attaining the age of 58 years on 23.06.2011 by rendering 23 years of service.  The Complainant had raised a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum on 03.07.2015 seeking relief against the OP for refixation of pension and District Forum passed its considered Order on 11.10.2017, whereas, the OP revised the Pension of the Complainant at Rs.1,289/- p.m and paid the arrears at Rs.17,409/- in the month of September 2016. The Respondent has not contested the case properly to substantiate his alleged entitlement for the difference of amount in monthly pension of Rs.1,943/- and arrears of Rs.798/- per month. 

6.       It is also relevant to make a mention on the point that, the District Forum has not explained how it arrived at on the Complainant’s entitlement of Monthly Pension of Rs.1,943/- with retrospective effect from the date of retirement and arrears of Rs.798/- p.m from the date of retirement till revised pension is paid to the Complainant. 

7.       Further, on perusal of document No.6 - the Calculation Sheet annexed to the Appeal Memorandum, it is seen that the Appellant had paid the arrears of pension at Rs.17,409/- from 04.08.2006 to 31.08.2016 in September 2016, though belatedly, that too after the Complainant had raised a Consumer Complaint on 03.07.2015, for the reasons best known to him only.  Under the circumstances, the Impugned Order requires to be interfered with, by allowing the Appeal in the following terms

          Appeal is allowed in part.  Impugned Order dated 11.10.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.1259/2015 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru is hereby modified and directing the OP to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a on Rs.17,409/- from 04.08.2006 to 31.08.2016 with cost of Rs.2,000/- within two months from the date of this Order, till its realisation.

The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

 

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

 

 

                                                                      President

*s