MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.       This is an appeal filed by OPs No.1 and 4 against order dated 3.8.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 160 of 2010.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case are that while in service of OP No.2, the complainant was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme-1995, which had been launched under Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, by the Government of India effective from 16.11.1995. The complainant retried from Food Corporation of India, OP No.2 after attaining the age of superannuation and within the provisions of the said Employees Pension Scheme – 1995 effective from 20.9.2006, after attained an age of 58 years. The OPs No. 1 and 4 had allotted the complainant EPS (A/c No.17366) and CPF (A/c No.3638) as mark of eligibility kits for social benefits to the complainant, within the provisions of law and the OPs No.2 and 3 were responsible for deduction from the monthly salary of the complainant, a specified percentage of 8.33% upto salary limit Rs.6500/- as provided under the provisions of the scheme. It was submitted that this contribution as such on monthly basis and amount was further deposited with the OPs No.1 and 4 to ensure monthly pension eligibility for the member along with other benefits as mentioned under EDIL Scheme. After attained the age of 58 years, the complainant submitted the mandatory Form 10 D on 4.8.2007 along with all the relevant papers to the OP No.2 for the fixation of monthly pension, which was forwarded by OP No.2 to the office of OP No.3 vide letter dated 10.8.2007 but still the monthly pension was not fixed by the OPs despite reminders dated 11.2.2009 and 17.8.2009 as well as notice dated 24.1.2010. The above said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, complaint was filed.

3.       Reply was filed by the OPs No.1 and 4 (Provident Fund) and admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was pleaded that on receipt of pension papers of the complainant through registered post from OP No.3 on 12.10.2009 by OP No.4  and the same was processed in accordance with the provisions of EPF Scheme. The same was sent along with pension input data sheet to OP No.1 for issuing the pension payment order in favour of the complainant.  It was further pleaded that pension input data sheet was received by OP No.1 on 16.4.2010 from OP No.4 and OP No.1 immediately issued PPO (Pension Payment Order) in his favour on 27.4.2010 for disbursement of monthly pension to the complainant through State Bank of India, Sector 34, Chandigarh as desired by the complainant. It was submitted that there was no delay on the part of OPs No.1 and 4. All the material allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.          Separate reply was filed by OPs No.2 & 3 and also admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was pleaded that the complainant submitted Form 10 D for fixation of the monthly pension of the complainant in August, 2007, which was forwarded to OP No.3 vide letter dated 10.8.2007 and the papers were forwarded to OP No.4 on 7.7.2008, which were returned to OP No.2 vide letter dated 10.9.2009. The OP No.3 after completing all the formalities forwarded the same to OP No.4 vide his letter dated 12.10.2009. The main reason of delay in submitting the papers to the RPFC was due to refusal of RPFC Office to accept the pension claim. Copy of the dak book and the correspondence made with the RPFC enclosed as Annexure R-V, VI & VII. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of OPs No.2 and 3 and as such no claim of interest against OPs No.2 and 3 lies and the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was further submitted that delay was only on the part of OPs No.1 and 4 as they returned the papers with frivolous objections and when the papers were again submitted, the office of RPFC refused to accept the same. Hence, delay was only on the part of OPs No.1 and 4 and no claim against OPs No.2 and 3 lies. It was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.       The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

6.       The learned District Forum allowed the complaint with the observation that the pension claim of the complainant remained pending with OP No.3 for about 11 months due to the fault of OP No.4 and the learned District Forum directed the OP  No.4 to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with litigation costs of Rs.5,500/-. The OP No.4 was directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which they would be liable to pay the entire amount along with penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the filing of the complaint i.e. 10.3.2010 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. The complaint against OPs No. 1 to 3 is dismissed with no order as to costs. It was further directed that the above said amount along with interest and costs, if any, may be recovered from the salary of the officer(s)/official(s) due to whose inaction the matter was delayed, of course after giving notice to the concerned employee(s) as required under the relevant service rules.

7.          Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the OPs No.1 and 4.  Ms.Geeta Sharma, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellants, Sh.Vinod Kumar, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sh.N.K.Zakhmi, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.

8.       In appeal, it is contended by the appellants that they issued EPF Code No.UP/36784 to the respondents No.2 and 3 in April, 2006 as the appellants have employees record of respondents No.2 and 3 only from April, 2006 onwards. It is submitted by the appellants that before April, 2006 details of employees EPF contributions should be provided by respondents No.2 and 3. Since the new code has been allotted to them due to the decentralization of the FCI but FCI has failed to update the accounts of employees as per the requirement after the decentralization.   The FCI failed to submit the Form 13-A along with Form 10-D of the R-1 and according to the EPF Act, without Form 13-A the appellants could not settle the case of respondent No.1 as the complete details were not sent to the appellants for the disbursement of the pension. The case was received with the appellants firstly on 16.7.2008 but the case was not completed. The appellants issued several reminders to the FCI to complete the documents but no response was received from FCI and as such the appellants sent back the pension case of the complainant on 10.9.2009. The case was again submitted before the appellants on 12.10.2009 but it was incomplete as the contribution detail for the year 82-83, 94-95 & 95-96 to 206-2007 was not filled up. In the interest of pensioner, the case was not returned but handed over to the FCI personnel (R-3) to correct the same on 29.1.2010. The papers submitted by R-3 were in such a haphazard and unarranged manner. It is submitted by the appellant that there were number of cases returned back to R-3 to submit with complete papers to settle the pension cases. The appellants received the Form 10-D of the respondent No.1 along with the complete details of his EPF and pension contribution details in the month of March, 2010 and the appellants settled the claims on 18.3.2010. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of FCI, who was never prompt in their response and has taken such a long period in submitting the duly completed claim form 10-D as per the requirement for the disbursement of the pension within the stipulated period.  The appellants did regular correspondence with FCI to provide the complete details of EPF contribution of respondent No.1 so that the pension may be released on time but they failed to reply the same promptly. It is further submitted by the appellants that FCI is also a defaulter of Provident Fund dues of Rs.63,17,69,582/- as per the assessment order of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi (North). The learned District Forum relied upon the statement of FCI without any documentary proof and FCI had argued that there was delay of 11 months on their part because the appellants stopped accepting the pension papers of the employees on the ground of huge rush. There is no truth in the argument because the FCI was directed many times to get the member’s pension contribution detail transferred to the office of appellants but the same was not done by the FCI and hence there was delay in claim settlement. It is submitted that there was no question of non acceptance of the pension papers by the appellants as during 2009-2010 this office has accepted total 139595 no. of claims, out of which 136429 numbers of claims were disposed and thus more than 97% of claims were settled. The appellants written letter dated 6.9.2010 and 17.4.2009 to the FCI but FCI has failed to follow the guidelines regarding the submission of claim forms of their employees in order to expedite the procedure. The learned District Forum awarding Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs which both can’t be granted in any circumstances and the entire findings recorded by the learned District Forum in the impugned order are baseless. The complainant has not placed on record any document indicating about averments and allegations of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of appellants and the learned District Forum relief upon the version of the complainant. The learned District Forum has failed to take note of the negligent conduct of the respondent No.1 who has submitted the form in the year 2007 whereas he was retired in the year 2006. The respondent No.1 himself is negligent to submit the form well in time but the learned District Forum has failed to look into the conduct of respondent No.1. Hence, it is prayed that appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be set aside.

9.       The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (complainant) argued that while in service of FCI, the complainant was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme-1995 and he was retried from FCI after attaining the age of superannuation and within the provisions of the said Employees Pension Scheme – 1995 effective from 20.9.2006, after attained an age of 58 years. The appellants/OPs No. 1 and 4 had allotted the respondent No.1/complainant EPS (A/c No.17366) and CPF (A/c No.3638). After attained the age of 58 years, the respondent No.1/complainant submitted the mandatory Form 10 D on 4.8.2007 along with all the relevant papers to the respondent/OP No.2 for the fixation of monthly pension, which was forwarded by respondent/OP No.2 to the office of respondent/OP No.3 vide letter dated 10.8.2007 but despite reminders dated 11.2.2009 and 17.8.2009 as well as notice dated 24.1.2010, still the monthly pension was not fixed by the OPs. Hence, it is prayed the appeal may kindly be dismissed.

10.     The learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 (FCI) argued that in August, 2007, the complainant submitted Form 10 D for fixation of the monthly pension and vide letter dated 10.8.2007 the same was forwarded to respondent No.3. On 7.7.2008 the papers were forwarded to OP No.4, which was returned to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 10.9.2009. After completing all the formalities, the respondent No.3 forwarded the same to appellant No.2 vide his letter dated 12.10.2009. The main reason of delay in submitting the papers to the RPFC was due to refusal of RPFC Office to accept the pension claim. As such, there was no delay on the part of respondents No.2 and 3 and as such no claim of interest against respondents No.2 and 3 lies. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondents No.2 and 3 as the delay was only on the part of appellants.

11.       We have gone through the file and heard the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the file shows that definitely there is a delay in the issuance of the PPO (Pension Payment Order) in favour of the complainant by the OPs as the complainant has forwarded the mandatory Form 10-D on 4.8.2007 along with all the relevant papers to OP No.2 for fixation of monthly pension which was forwarded by them to OP No3 vide letter dated 10.8.2007 which remained pending with the OP No.3 for about 11 months as the same was sent to OP No.4 on 7.7.2008 vide Annexure R-2. As per the contention of the OP No.3 that this delay is not due to any fault of OP No.3 but this delay is due to the reason that OPs No.1 and 4 stopped accepting the pension papers of the employees on the ground that there was rush with them and they were unable to deal with the cases. For this reason, the case of the complainant for fixation of monthly pension was withheld by OP No.3. In support of their contention, the documentary proof has been placed on record by OP No.3 whereas nothing has been placed on record by OP No.4 in contravention to this contention of OP No.3. In our opinion, the learned District Forum has rightly observed that there is a delay and that is due to the fault of OP No.4 (Employees Provident Fund Organisation through APFC, Noida) and not due to the fault of OPs No. 1 to 3 (APFC and FCI). Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP No.4 qua the complainant.

12.       The learned District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint and directed the OP No.4 (Employees Provident Fund Organisation through APFC, Noida) to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation costs of Rs.5,500/-. The order passed by the learned District Forum is just, fair and proper. No interference is called for. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants (Provident Fund) is hereby dismissed and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

13.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                        

12^th January, 2011.