KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:223/2006 JUDGMENT DATED:29..06..2010. PRESENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board, : APPELLANT R/by its Secretary, TVPM. (By Adv:Sri.Nalanchira Krishnankutty) Vs. Peter Mathew, Kandirickal House, Kalayanthani (P.O), : RESPONDENT Alakkodu, Idukki (Dist). (By Adv:Sri.N.Madhusoodanan Nair) JUDGMENT SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant herein was the opposite party and the respondent was the complainant in OP.224/2000 on the file of CDRF, Idukki. The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in causing delay in disbursing the pension due to the complainant. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. The Secretary of the pension board took the contention that there occurred delay on the part of the employer society namely Alakkodu service Co-operative Bank in remitting the contribution to the pension fund. Thus, the opposite party contended that the delay in disbursing the pension was due to the fault on the part of the complainant/ employee and his employer, the Alakkodu Service Co-operative Bank. 2. Before the Forum below no oral evidence was adduced from the side of the parties to the complaint. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30th January 2006 passed by CDRF, Idukki in OP.224/00 would give an indication that no document was produced from either side. But on getting the lower court records it is found that the complainant produced 18 documents and those documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P18. The discussion in the body of the order would also give an indication that the complainant had adduced documentary evidence. But, from the side of the opposite party/Pension Board only the scheme with Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 is seen produced. No other document was produced from the side of the opposite party/Pension Board. On an appreciation of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order finding the opposite party/Pension Board deficient in rendering service and thereby the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. It is against the said order the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party/Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board. 3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party. It is to be noted that this appeal was heard in part on 8/3/2010. On that day both the parties were represented. But subsequent to that date, the respondent remained absent. On the last hearing date (4/5/2010) the respondent requested for an adjournment. Hence the matter was adjourned to this date as a last chance. But on this day the respondent is absent and there is no representation for the respondent/complainant. So, this commission is constrained to hear the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party. It is submitted that there was no delay or deficiency of service on the part of the appellant in disbursing the pension. In fact the delay occurred only due to the negligence of the complainant and his employer, the Alakkodu Service Co-operative Bank. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 4. Admittedly the respondent/complainant was an employee of Alakkodu Service Co-operative Bank and he retired from service in the year 1995. But the pension to the respondent/complainant was disbursed only in the year 1999. Thus, there occurred a delay of 4 years in disbursing the pension to the respondent/complainant. The definite case of the respondent/complainant is that the delay in disbursing the pension due to him occurred because of the negligence and laches on the part of the opposite party/Pension Board. It is to be noted that the respondent/complainant is a beneficiary under the pension scheme and that the opposite party/pension Board was constituted under the said scheme namely; Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994. The appellant/opposite party took the contention that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A perusal of the aforesaid pension scheme would make it clear that the pension fund is constituted by receiving contribution from the employees of the societies and also from the employer societies. The aforesaid scheme would also show that the pension Board is having the sole authority to deal with the pension fund and that the expenses of administration of the pension fund shall be made from that fund. There is nothing on record to show that the pension board is functioning without the aid of the pension fund. So, it can only be considered that the very pension fund is existing on the strength of the pension fund which was constituted or formed with the aid of the contribution obtained from the member employees and also the member societies. Thus, it can very safely be concluded that the opposite party/Pension Board has received consideration from the employees of the societies. So the service rendered by the opposite party/Pension Board can be treated as service rendered on consideration received from the employees like the complainant. The Forum below can be justified in holding that the complainant is a consumer coming within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 5. The appellant/opposite party has taken a stand that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/Pension Board in disbursing the pension to the complainant. It is also contended that the delay occurred due to the failure on the part of the Alakkodu Co-operative Society/Co-operative Bank, the employer of the complainant to remit the contribution towards the pension fund. But the appellant/opposite party has not adduced any concrete evidence to substantiate their contention that there occurred delay on the part of the society namely; Alakkodu Service Co-operative Bank in remitting the pension contribution. The appellant/opposite party has also got a case that the complainant himself failed to submit the application for pension as stipulated in clause 27 of the scheme. The aforesaid clause 27 reads as follows:- Application for pension:- 1. An employee shall submit his formal application for superannuation pension in Form appended as Annexure 1 to this Scheme at least one year in advance of the date of his anticipated retirement or for retiring pension as soon as may be, after the grant of permission by the appointing authority to retire. 2. The application under sub-paragraph (1) shall be submitted to the Chief Executive of the society, who shall forward the same to the Board with relevant records and a verification Certificate. 6. The aforesaid clause 27 of the scheme would make it clear that it is the bounden duty of the pensioner (the employee of the society who is to retire from the service of the society) to submit an application for superannuation pension at least one year in advance of his date of retirement or immediately after getting the permission from the appointing authority. But, in this case there is nothing on record to show that the complainant/employee submitted such an application as stipulated in clause 27 of the scheme. This would give an indication that there was negligence on the part of the respondent/complainant also. 7. So, both the parties must be given one more opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective pleadings especially, in the light of the provisions contained in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994. Unfortunately the Forum below has not considered these aspects of the case. The Forum below has also failed to consider the fact as to whether there occurred any lapse or omission on the part of the respondent/complainant in submitting the application to the opposite party/Pension Board. Likewise, Forum below has also failed to consider the point as to whether there occurred any delay on the part of the Alakkodu Service Co-operative Bank in forwarding the relevant papers with the pension contribution in the name of the respondent/complainant who was the employee of the said Alakkodu Service Co-operative Bank. This is a fit case to be remitted back to the Forum below for fresh consideration and disposal of the same on merits. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the matter is remitted back to the Forum for fresh consideration and disposal of the same on merits. The impugned order dated:30th January 2006 passed by CDRF, Idukki in OP.224/2000 is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 11-08-2010. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER VL. | 
