Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.12.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed OP No.1 as under ; “Therefore, we are of the opinion that in the present case OP-1 should pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,500/-. We accordingly order that the above said amount shall be paid by OP-1 to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which, it would be liable to pay the entire amount alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 24.02.2010 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. In order to safeguard the interest of the organization, it is ordered that OP No.1 would be free to recover the above said amount alongwith interest and costs 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.” The complaint against OP Nos.2 to 4 was, however, dismissed. 2. The complainant (now respondent No.1) was working as Manager (General) with the Food Corporation of India. He retired as such, on 31.12.2009 while being posted with the Food Corporation of India OP No.2. He was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme. He was, thus, entitled to pension under the Employees Pension Scheme,1995, from Jaunary,2007, on attaining the age of 58 years. Prior to his retirement, he submitted all the requisite papers for the grant of pension, which were forwarded by OP No.2 (now appellant No.2) vide letter dated 30.12.2008, to OP NO.1(now appellant NO.1), which forwarded the same to OP No.3, but despite the lapse of two years, no response was received. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. In the written reply ,filed by OP Nos. 1 & 2, the factual matrix of the case was admitted. It was stated that the complainant after becoming eligible for pension, applied for the same and submitted Form 10-D and other papers in December, 2008, after a period of 12 months. The OPs immediately forwarded the same to DGM (CPF) FCI, Noida vide letter dated 30.12.2008, who after due process, submitted the same to the Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida vide letter dated 27.4.2010. It was further stated that the papers were returned by OP No.3 to the Zonal office of the FCI at Noida. The Zonal office, after due process, forwarded the papers to OP-3. It was further stated that the main reason for delay, in submitting the papers, was the refusal of OP Nos. 3 & 4 to accept the same. It was further stated that the pension was to be fixed by OP Nos. 3 & 4. It was denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on behalf of the OPs, or they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 4. OP Nos. 3 & 4, in their separate written reply, stated that the complete pension papers of the complainant were received from OP NO.1 on 30.4.2010, which were immediately processed and, he was issued the Pension Payment Order alongwith arrears on 16.7.2010. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of OP No.3,nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint against OP NO.1, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellants/OP Nos.1 & 2. . 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, there was no delay on the part of appellant No.1, in submitting the papers. He further submitted that the complainant did not submit papers in time, to the OPs, as a result whereof, the same could not be forwarded to the quarters concerned promptly for processing his case. He further submitted that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the appellants. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant , submitted that the pension papers were submitted by the complainant much before 30.12.2008, but OP No.1(now appellant No.1) sat over the same. He further submitted that though all the formalities, regarding the submission of pension papers, were completed by the complainant much before 30.12.2008, yet he was physically and mentally harassed for a period of more than 28 months. He further submitted that the District Forum was, thus, right in accepting the complaint against OP NO.1, as the entire fault, lay on it. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Annexure A-1 is the letter dated 30.12.2008 vide this letter Asstt. General Manager (Administration) Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, forwarded the family pension case of the complainant to the Dy. General Manager (CPF), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (North), Noida(UP) OP No.1. It means that the complainant/respondent No.1 submitted the pension papers, in the Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Punjab, Chandigarh, much before 30.12.2008. The said papers remained pending with OP No.1 for about 28 months. It was on 27.4.2010 vide Annexure A-II, that OP NO.1, sent these papers to OP NO.3. OP No.3 kept the papers for about three months, till the pension was released to the complainant. No doubt, a plea was taken by the Counsel for the appellants that the delay occurred in the release of pension as OP No.3 refused to accept papers, on account of rush of work in its office, yet no reliable evidence was placed, on record to prove this factum. No document was produced that before 27.4.2010 the papers were submitted by OP NO.1 to OP NO.3. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that it was OP NO.1, which was the main culprit which did not submit the pension papers of the complainant for a long time to OP NO.3. OP NO.1 did not bother about the harassment and miseries undergone by the complainant, during the period of 28 months, who after retirement had no source of income except pension, but he had no hope of getting the same. Pension was the only source of income of the complainant, after his retirement, to maintain himself and his family. Had any plausible explanation been furnished by OP No.1, for the delay which occurred in forwarding the pension papers, the matter would been different. In the absence of any plausible explanation, this Commission cannot coin any of its own, to fit in with its case. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that OP No.1 was deficient, in rendering service. The District Forum was also right, in granting compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.5500/- in favour of the complainant with a direction that in case, the payment was not made within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the payable amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.2.2010 the date when the complaint was filed, till realization. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. 12. The order of the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission . 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/-. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
