IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 16th day of October 2009 CC.206/2006 M.Chandu, Muthradan House, Vietnam,P.O.Keezhpally, Complainant Aralam Amsom Desom. (Rep. by Adv.John Joseph) The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Opposite parties 8th & 9th floor, Mayoor Bhavan, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi 1. O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to take immediate steps for disbursement of family pension benefits with effect from 31.12.2002 along with 12% interest on the pension arrear and to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of this proceedings. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows; complaint is a retired employee of central state farm, Aralam. He retired on 5.4.01. The complainant submitted application for reduced pension in the year 2002. His date of birth is 31.12.52 and is entitled for reduced pension with effect from 31.12.02. Opposite party returned the application on the ground that no document produced for proving his age. In April 2004 the complainant resubmitted application with document to prove the age. It was again returned after six months on the ground that the joint photograph of the complainant was not enclosed. Complainant returned the same with written representation through his lawyer dt.27.1.04 stating the fact of desertion by his wife, who was living with another man by which she became not entitled to get family pension. Even then opposite party did not sanction family pension benefit. On 16.2.02 a complaint was filed as OP.No.44’05. Complaint was dismissed with an advice to obtain separation certificate and to produce the same before opposite party to get the family pension. On 10.6.06 resubmitted the application with documents including certified copy of the divorce decree. Opposite party has not sanctioned family pension even after getting divorce decree. Hence this complaint. In pursuance of the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The contentions of opposite party in brief are as follows; the pension papers duly completed in all respect was received to the office on 7.7.2006 and the same was processed immediately and the pension papers including input Data sheet in respect of P.G account No/DL.3670/302 pertains to the complainant were sent to APFC9Pension) sub-Regional office, EPFO, Kannur for issuance of PPO. Finally PPO was prepared by sub regional office, Kannur as the matter falls under its jurisdiction. On14.9.06 the link branch of Canara bank was directed disburse the pension arrears with effect from 22.2.04 to 8/2006 amounting to Rs.19816/- and monthly reduced pension of Rs.654/- through its payee branch. Complainant is not entitled to get pension with effect from 31.12.02. The date of receipt in the office of the opposite party was 24.2.04 and without necessary documents. The application returned for poof of date of birth and also for the joint photograph with spouse which is essential for processing pension in all cases. The opposite party has sanctioned monthly pension immediately on resubmission of application for pension. It can be seen that the complainant has signed the letter on 10.6.06 and forwarded subsequently to the opposite party. There is no deficiency. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complaint is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint/ 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 to B5. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 Admittedly complaint is a retired employee of the Central state Farm, Aral am, a unit of State Farm Corporation of India. He retired from service on 5.4.01. Complainant’s case is that he has submitted application immediately after retirement. But the opposite party returned the application on 22.3.04 for want of age certificate. The application was resubmitted in the month of April 2004. The application was again returned on 19.12.04 requiring to produce joint photograph with spouse. Complaint resubmitted with the required documents on 10.6.06. Since there was no result this complaint lodged in the month of August 2006. The PPO then issued on 14.9.06. The case of the opposite party on the other hand, is that the proper application for pension received on 7.7.06. On 14.9.06 it was directed to disburse the pension arrears w.e.f 22.2.04 onwards and monthly reduced pension of Rs.654/- through its payee branch. It can be seen that the opposite party disbursed the pension benefit only after filing the complaint. The complainant’s argument is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in sanctioning the pension benefit to the complainant after resubmission of the pension application in the year 2006 is the main question to be decided. If so the question arose what is the exact date of resubmission of application? Ext.A1 shows the date 10.6.2006 but its postal receipt Ext.A2 does not carry any date and seal. So that it is difficult to conclude that 10.6.06 is the date of resubmission on the basis of Ext.A1 & A2. The application was first returned for production document with respect to the date of birth to prove the age of the complainant. Ext.B3 is the copy of the certificate regarding date of birth. It is seen issued on 24.7.06. If it is so, it can only be assumed that the application has been submitted only after 24.7.06. Ext.B1 copy of 10 D application carries the date 7.9.2006 complainant did not challenge the date of issue of certificate. There is no reason to disbelieve the date of issue of certificate of date of birth. If that be so it is not possible to resubmit the application on 10.6.2006. The case of opposite party is that the application has been resubmitted by the complainant after curing the defect on 7.9.2006. The seal on Ex. B1 confirms this date 7th September 2006. In the light of the above discussion and available documents on record it can be seen that the complainant failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence we hold that the complaint is not entitled for any remedy as prayed in the complaint. The issues 1 to 3 found against the complainant. In the result, complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.copy of the letter dt.10.6.06sent to OP A2.Postal receipt A3.Copy of the order in OP.44/05 of CDRF, Kannur A4.Copy of the complaint in OP.44/05 submitted by the complainant in CDRF, Kannur A5.Copy of the judgment in OP.573/05 of Family court, Kannur. Exhibits for the opposite party B1.Copy of the application form in F.10 D B2.Copy of the order of CDRF, Kannur in OP.44/05 B3.Copy of the letter dt.10.6.06sent by complainant B4.Copy of the (date of birth )certificate B5.copy of the PPO dt.14.9.06 in respect of complainant Witness examined for either side: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer disputes Redrssal forum, Kannur.
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
