(Passed on 01.03.2013)
Per Mr N Arumugam, Presiding Member
This is an appeal filed by the original o.p. against the order dtd.19.09.2003 passed by District Consumer Forum, Akola in Consumer Complaint No.CC/03/143 allowing the complaint with direction to pay the pension to the complainant from the date of his retirement.
(For the sake of brevity the appellant is herein after referred as o.p.No.1, respondent No.1 as “the complainant” and respondent No.2 as “o.p.No.2”.)
The facts of the case are as under:-
1. The complainant was working as a labour in the appellant’s mill. After attaining superannuation at the age of 60 yrs., he retired from the service in 1997. Thereafter, he applied for retirement benefit to his employer – o.p.No.1. After receiving the relevant papers he submitted case papers to the respondent No.2. Due to some confusion in the date of birth of the complainant the retirement benefit was not given to the complainant. Accordingly, he filed the Consumer Complaint before the Forum for his retirement benefit. However, in Consumer Complaint he prayed for Pension.
2. O.p. No.1 vide its written version submitted that they had already submitted the relevant papers to the o.p.No.2 after retirement of the complainant. However, the o.p.No.2 did not pay pension to the complainant. Therefore, it is the only responsibility of the o.p.No.2 and not the o.p.No.1. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint with cost.
3. O.p.No.2 by its Written Version denied the allegations of the complainant and submitted that after scrutiny of the papers, received from the o.p.No.1, they noticed that there are discrepancies in the date of birth and in the name of the complainant. As per Statutory Return Forms No.9 & 10, submitted by o.p.No.1, the Date of Birth of the complainant is shown as 30.12.1957, and the name as Rambhau Ganpat Pawar respectively. Whereas in the School Leaving Certificate the date of birth is shown as 10.06.1937 and the name as Rambhau Ganpatsa Bhavasar. It is further submitted that the o.p.No.2 has no authority to change the details in the said Forms submitted by o.p.No.1 for granting the pension to the complainant. Therefore they should not be held responsible for that and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. After perusal of the case papers and on hearing both the sides, the forum allowed the complaint and directed o.p No.1 to pay pension to the complainant from the date of his retirement till 30.12.2015 and thereafter by o.p.No.2.
5. Being aggrieved by this order o.p.No.1 preferred this appeal.
6. Adv. Mr Malviya for the appellant / o.p.No.1 appeared for the appellant and Adv. Mr S D Kane appeared for respondent No.1 / complainant and Adv. Mr H I Kothari for respondent No.2 / o.p.No.2. We heard them and perused all the relevant documents on record.
7. Adv. Mr Malviya for o.p.No.1 argued that after superannuation of the complainant the case papers were received from the complainant and thereafter the same were forwarded to o.p.No.2 for his retirement benefit. Accordingly, the same was settled. After receiving the retirement benefit the complainant falsely filed the Consumer Complaint, claiming his retirement benefit. The Forum wrongly allowed the complaint and directed the o.ps to pay pension to the complainant. He further argued that payment of pension does not fall in the purview of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (CPA). Without considering the legal position the Forum wrongly allowed the complaint, which is not legal. Hence, the same should be set aside.
8. Adv. Mr Malviya also submitted the case law of National Commission in the case of Premsing Verma Vs. Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board & Anr. – reported in IV (2011) CPJ 496 (NC). In this case Hon’ble National Commission observed that the complaint is not maintainable because the petitioner has filed the complaint against the employer for his terminal benefits – Consumer Forum is not appropriate authority because complainant cannot be treated as a consumer qua his employer. Adv. Mr Kane for the complainant argued that the o.p.No.1 has not paid retirement benefit after his retirement in spite of sending correct papers to the o.p.No.2 for granting retirement benefit the appellant submitted wrong papers to the Provident Fund Officer i.e. o.p.No.2. Hence, complainant could not get his retirement benefit. Hence, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the Forum.
9. After hearing both the parties and perusal of the case papers we observed that the complainant was working as a labour in the o.p.No.1 – Mill at Akola. After his superannuation in the year 1997, he submitted his relevant papers for his retirement benefit to o.p.No.1 – employer and it was forwarded to o.p.No.2 by for settling the retirement benefit. Due to some confusion regarding the date of birth and the name of the complainant the settlement of retirement benefit could not take place. From the record it is clear that due to delay in settlement of the same, he filed the complaint before the Provident Fund Office, Akola, claiming pension. From the complaint it is not clear that whether complainant wants retirement benefit or pension. Adv. Mr Kane for the complainant also, through out his argument, contended that the complainant has not received the pension. As per the provision of the CPA the retired employee of any organisation cannot file the complaint against his employer for his pension before the District Consumer Forum. The Consumer Forum is not an appropriate authority to decide pension. We agreed with the submission of Adv. Mr Malviya that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint regarding non-receipt of pension and he has also produced the case law of Hon’ble National Commission on this point cited above. However, the Forum without analyzing the reasons and facts properly allowed the complaint and directed the o.ps to pay the pension to the complainant, which is not just & legal.
We, therefore, pass the following order:-
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. Order passed by District Consumer Forum, Akola in Consumer Complain No.CC/03/143 is set aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
iii. No order as to cost.
iv. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
