IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 18th day of November 2009 - V.Madhavi, W/o Kannan, aged 63 years
No occupation, residing at ‘Baluseri (H)’, P.O.Velimanam, Kannur Dist. - K.Rohini, aged 63 years
No occupation, ‘Kavunkal (H)’ Athikkal P.O., Keezhpally – 670 704. - Annamma Padiyil, aged 63 years, no occupation
‘Padiyil House’, Vattappara P.O., Keezhpally. Complainants: Vs. 1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, 8th & 9th Floor, Mayoor Bhavan, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -1. 2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, E.P.F. Organization, V.K.Complex, Fort Road, Kannur. 3. The Secretary, Board of Trustees, E.P.F., State Farms Corporation of India Ltd. 14-15 Farms Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 19. Opposite Parties: C.C.No.230/05 Smt.K.P.Preethikumari, Member This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pass revised. Pension payment orders in respect of EPF Account Nos. of complainants and to pass statutory interest on the entire pension arrears and further directions to Opposite Party 3 to pay contribution to EPF collected from 1st and 2nd complainants as well as the employer along with 12% interest from the respective date of collection till realization with cost and compensation. The complainant’s case is as follows. The first complainant retired from service on 30.3.03 on account of option of VSS proposed by the employer and her EPF account No. is DL/3670/04408 and the date of birth is on 19..5.1942. She had attained 58 years of age as on 9.5.2000. The superannuation age is 60 years. On getting pension payment order dt. 17.9.03 from 2nd opposite party, she realized that 3rd opposite party has not paid any amount to the opposite party w.e.f. 9.5.2000, even though the opposite party 3 has collected contributions to EPF from the 1st complainant and from her employer till 30.3.01. Therefore the 1st complainant is entitled to get 10 months contribution to EPF collected from her as well as the 3rd opposite party along with 12% interest per annum from the date of collection till realization. Immediately after the retirement the 1st complainant has submitted the required application for disbursement of superannuation pension. Though 2nd opposite party sanctioned pension w.e.f. 9.5.2000, the 1st complainant received the pension only in the month of October 2003. In short the 1st complainant has received pension after the lapse of more than 2 years from the date of her retirement. As per the EPF scheme she is entitled to get 12% interest on pension arrears. If the concerned Regional provident Fund Commissioner has failed to disburse pension benefits within 30 days, she is entitled to get 12% interest as the entire pension arrears w.e.f. 30.3.01. Moreover 2nd opposite party has sanctioned only Rs.375/- to her towards monthly pension. In fact she is entitled to get Rs.600/- minimum towards the monthly pension. Many employees with identical service condition and age are getting much higher amount as monthly pension than the 1st complainant. After filing a case, the monthly pension of an employee by name Chandrika of the same establishment has been considerably increased by 2nd opposite party. The service condition and age of Chandrika and the 1st petitioner is identical. So the pension payment order is erroneous and the same is liable to be revised. The 2nd complainant retired from service on 26.10.2000 and her date of birth is 26.10.1940. The 2nd complainant also attained 58 years of age on 26.10.98 and 3rd opposite party collected contribution to EPF from the employer as well as from the 2nd complainant till her retirement. Only on getting the pension payment order, the 2nd complainant realized that the contribution for 24 months is not forwarded to the 1st opposite party by 3rd opposite party. Therefore 2nd complainant is entitled to get 24 months EPF contribution collected from her as well as the employer along with 12% of interest per annum. The 2nd complainant has received pension payment order having No.KR/KNR/10737 dt.14.11.02 from 2nd opposite party. As per this the 2nd opposite party had ordered only Rs.375/-. But as in the case of 1st complainant, the 2nd complainant is also entitled to get a minimum monthly pension of Rs.600/- and therefore the said pension payment order is to be revised. The EPF account of 3rd complainant is DL/3670/03550 and her date of birth is 11.2.1938 and she is entitled to receive pension benefits from 28.2.1996 as per pension payment order No.KK/KNR/16870/10.3.05. The 2nd opposite party has sanctioned only a sum of Rs.313/- as monthly pension. As in the case of the other petitioners also the 3rd complainant is also entitled to get Rs.600/- towards monthly pension. As per the EPF scheme the 3rd complainant is also entitled to get 12% interest on the pension arrears which would come more than Rs.8000/-, whereas only a sum of Rs.4302/- is sanctioned by 2nd opposite party towards interest and hence the 3rd complainant is entitled to get pension arrear at revised rate from 11.02.96 along with a statutory interest at 12% per annum. There is grave deficiency on the part of 3rd opposite party by withholding the contribution collected from 1st and 2nd complainant, without disbursing the said amount to the complainant. The 1st and 2nd opposite party have not sanctioned the statutory interest compared to the actual entitlement. So the pension payment orders passed by 2nd opposite party is liable to be revised with actual benefits. Here this complainant. Upon receiving the notice from the Forum OP1 to 3 appeared and filed their versions. 1st opposite party filed version contending that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complainant, since neither the pension record of the complainant are being maintained within the jurisdiction of this Forum nor any cause of complaint arose within the jurisdiction. The monthly pension cases in respect of the complainants have already been processed in accordance with the provisions of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and released to them through their respective bank before the complaint. The excess contribution has to be refunded by the 3rd opposite party to the complainants, since it was with the 3rd opposite party. The pension claim form 10-D in respect of the complainant was received in the office of 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party only on 16.4.03 and immediately the same was processed and issued the necessary instructions by a letter dt.4.9.03 to the Regional Provident Commissioner, Kannur for issuing pension payment order in favour of the complainant as the complainant desired pension through the Canara Bank, Kizhore, Iritty branch. The pension claim of the complainant had been examined in accordance with the provisions of EPS-95 and accordingly the monthly pension Rs.375/- has rightly sanctioned and paying regularly. The calculation of monthly pension of the 1st complainant is calculated as follows. 1. Aggregate pension benefits as per Para 12(5)(a) (on account of Pensionable Service Under Employees Pension Scheme 1995 385.00 2. Aggregate past Service benefits (on account of FPF Scheme, 1971, the years ass per Para 12(5)(b) 3(b) 95.00 3. Aggregate benefit under Para (12 and the (Table B) 51.00 ------------ Total 481.00 ======= Total aggregate benefits for the purpose of calculation of monthly pension came Rs.481 ie. Less than Rs.500 and hence the department accepted the minimum aggregate benefits Rs.500/- for the purpose of the calculation of monthly pensions a per the formula. Minimum pensionable amount X (Total service under EPF Scheme, 1971 total service under the EPF-95)24 = (500 x 18)/24 = 375.Monthly pension amount comes Rs. 375/- and same are being paid regularly. The pension claim Form 10-D, in respect of 2nd complainant was received in the office of 1st and 2nd opposite parties only on 4.4.02 and immediately the same was processed and issued the necessary instructions by a letter dtd. 23.10.02 to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kannur for issuing the pension payment. Order is in favour of the complainant through Canara Bank, Kizhore, Iritty. The pension payment order in respect of the 3rd complainant was received in the office of and 2nd respondent only on 08.06.04 and immediately the same was processed and issued the necessary instruction letter dtd.18.02.2005 to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kannur for issuing the pension payment order in favour of the complainant through Canara Bank, Kizhore, Iritty. So the pension of the complainants are already been settled immediately in accordance with the provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, and hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed. 3rd opposite party also filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer u/s.2(1)(d) of the Act, since they have not availed of any service from the opposite party for any consideration. It is admitted that the complainants were employees of Central State Farm, Aralam and retired from service. Subsequently on their retirement necessary particulars of their service were forwarded to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Pension Cell, New Delhi by the 3rd opposite party on 23.12.03. The relief sought by the complainants are to disburse pension benefits to the complainants w.e.f. their retirement. Since all the particulars are furnished by the 3rd opposite party, 1st and 2nd opposite parties are liable for the relief. Moreover 3rd opposite party is unaware as to the reasons why Regional Provident Fund Commissioner failed to disburse the actual pension to the complainant. The excess amount collected from the 1st complainant towards EPF contribution after the retirement age, Rs.1235/- has been paid to her by a DD No.938565 dt.10.03.08. Similarly in respect of the collection made from 2nd complainant after attaining her retirement age, Rs.3244 is paid by D.D.No.938572 dt.10.03.08. The 3rd opposite party is not familiar with the calculation made by 1st and 2nd opposite parties for providing pension to the complainant. The 3rd opposite party has forwarded details of contribution to the concerned authority so there is no negligence on the part opposite party, and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above contentions the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether the Forum has jurisdiction? If try the case. 2. Whether the 1st and 2nd complainant is entitled to return back the amount paid to 3rd opposite party after their date of exit. 3. Whether the complainants are entitled to any revised order of pension. 4. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties. 5. Relief and cost. The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts. A1 to A6 and Exts. B1 to B5. Issue No.1: The opposite parties contented that the complainant is not a consumer u/s 2(1)(d) of the Act, since they have not availed any service from the opposite party for any consideration and the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case since neither the pension record of the complainant are being maintained within the jurisdiction of the Forum nor any cause of complaint arose within the jurisdiction. It is a well known fact that pension as per EPF is calculated, controlled and maintained by 3rd opposite party through 2nd opposite party as per the information given by the employer. 2nd opposite party is situated within the jurisdiction of the Forum and hence the Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant. The case of the 1st ad 2nd complainant is that they are entitled to get 10 months and 24 months contribution to employees family pension collected from them as well as employer by 3rd opposite party with 12% interest from the respective date of collection till realization. The 3rd opposite party admitted that they have collected an amount of Rs.1235/- from 1st complainant and Rs.3244/- from the 2nd complainant. 3rd opposite party contended that they have refunded the above amount of Rs/1235/- to complainant No.1 as per D.D.No.938565 dt.10.3.05, and an amount of Rs.3244/- to the 2nd complainant as per D.D.No.938572 dt.10.3.05. But even though they have produced photocopy of the two receipts, it was not marked and the 3rd opposite party has not come before the Forum to prove their case. On the other hand the complainants 1 & 2 pleaded that they are entitled to get the extra amount collected as contribution with interest and the 1st Complainant deposed before the Forum that, “58 D.D.938375, dtd. 10.03.05. Moreover, the 3rd opposite party has failed to prove beyond doubt that they have handed over the amount to complainants No.1 and 2. So there is deficiency on the part of 3rd opposite party and hence they are liable to discharge their liability by refunding the above said amount of Rs.1235/- to complainant No.1 and Rs.3244/- to the 2nd complainant. So 3rd opposite party has liability to refund the amount with 6% interest from the date of collection till realization. The further case of the complainants is that they are entitled to get revised pension payment orders with statutory interest on the entire pension arrears. As admitted by opposite parties that the complainants were employees under the Central State Farm, Aralam. As per the act, the quantum of pension of an employee is calculated as per the service particulars furnished by the employer through employee. The 1st complainant was joined on 15.11.81 and retired from service on 30.3.03. The date of birth is on 09.05.1942 and she has attained age of 58 years as on 09.05.00 and the date of exit was on 08.05.00 and date of pension is on 9.05.00. From the above particulars it can be seen that for calculating members monthly pension, Paragraph 12(5)of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 is applicable, because the date of commencement of pension is before 16.11.00 and all of the three complainants are existing members. As per para 12(5) (i) The superannuation or early pension shall be equal to the aggregate of (a) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16th November 1995 or Rs.335 per month whichever is more. (b) Past service pension as provided in sub-paragraph(3). (ii) The aggregate of (a) and (b) calculated as above shall be subject to the minimum of Rs.500/- per month, provided the eligible service is 24 years, provided further if it is less than 24 years the pension shall be proportionately lesser but subject to the minimum of Rs.265/- per month. So the pension of 1st complainant can be calculated as follows. (iii) Under Paragraph 12(5) (i)(a). Pension as determined under Sub-paragraph(2) for the period of service rendered from the 16th November 1995 or Rs.335/- per month whichever is more. As per Sub-paragraph (2). Monthly members pension= Pensionable Salary x pensionable service divided by 70 As per Ext.B1(A) the Pensionable salary of 1st complainant = 1549 As per Act, the pensionable service means the service rendered by the member for which contribution have been received. ie, the aggregate period of service rendered from 16.11.95 or from the date of joining whichever is later to the date of exit. ie. the 1st complainant had required 4 years 6 months to complete 58 years as on 16.11.95. So the pensionable service can be rounded as 5 years. 1549 x 5 ----------- = 111 70 Para 12 (5)(i)(a) of the scheme provides. Rs.335 as minimum amount. The past service pension as per Para. 12(5)(L1)(b) can be calculated as follows. As per the scheme past service means the period of service rendered by an existing member from the date of joining employees family pension fund till 15th November 1995. Accordingly the 1st complainant’s date of joining EPF is 15.11.81. So she has 14 years as past service. So the past service pension payable to 1st complainant on completion of 58 years is = 95. The factor as per table B since the 1st complainant had required 5 years to complete 58 years as on 16.11.95 is = 1.536 So the past benefit is = 1.536 X 95 = 145.92 So as per Para 12(5)(i) The aggregate pension is 335+ 145.92 = 480.92 ie 481 The complainant’s eligible service is only 19 years. So as per Para 12(5)(ii) the pension of the employee can be calculated as 500 x 19 divided by 24 = 395.83 ie. 396 So the 1st complainant is entitled to receive Rs.396/- as monthly pension. The pension of 2nd complainant also can be calculated as per Para 12(5) of the EP Scheme 1995, since the 2nd complainant is also an existing member and the date of commencement of her pension is before 16.11.00. As per Para 12(5)(i)(a) Members monthly pensionable salary x pensionable service divided by 70 As per Ext.B1(B) the pensionable salary = Rs.1548. Pensionable service = 2 year 11 months and 11 days ie. 3 years = 1548 x 3 divided by 70 = 66.34 = 66 Here the minimum amount = Rs.335 as per Para 12(5)(i) (a) of scheme . The past service pension as per 12(5)(i) (b) can be calculated as follows. The 2nd complainant has 16 years of past service. The past service pension payable to 2nd complainant is = 120 The factor as per table B since the 2nd complainant had actual service of 3 years, 1-269. So the past benefit is = 120 x 1.269 = 152.28 = 152 The aggregate pension is = 335 + 152 = 487 The eligible service of the 2nd complainant is 19 years. So as per 12(5)(i) the pension is 500 x 19 divided by 24 = 395.83 ie. 396. The 2nd complainant is also entitled to get a monthly pension of Rs.396/- per month. The pension of 3rd complainant also can be calculated as per Para 12(5) of the EP Scheme 1995, the 3rd complainant is also an existing member and the date of commencement of her pension is before 16.11.00. Date of birth of 3rd complainant is = 11.2.1938 Date of joining = 1.3.1980 Date of exit = 10.2.1996 Date of attaining 58 years of age = 11.2.1996 As per Para 12(5)(i)(a) members monthly pension = Pensionable Salary x Pensionable Service divided by 70 As per Ext.B1(c) the pensionable salary of 3rd complainant = Rs.1688 Pensionable service is 2 months and 25 days ie. 3 months = 1688 x 3 ---------- 12 = 6.02 ---------- 70 Here the minimum amount as per para 12(5)(i)(a) of scheme = Rs.335 He past service as per Para 12(5) (i)(b) can be calculated as follows. The 3rd complainant has past service of 16 years. So the past service pension payable to 2nd complainant is = 120 The factor as per table B since the 2nd complainant had actual service of 2nd complainant is 3 months = 1.049 So the past benefit is 120 x 1.049 = 125.880 = 126 So the aggregate pension is = 335 + 126 = 461 The eligible service of the 3rd complainant is 16 years and 3 months ie. 17 months So as per Para 12(5)(ii) the aggregate pension = 500 x 17/24 = 354.16 = 354. The 3rd complainant is entitled to get Rs.354/- as monthly pension. As per Para..17 A of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the claim completed in all respects submitted along with the requisite documents shall be settled and benefit amount paid to the beneficiaries within 30 days from the date of receipt by the commissioner and if there is delay, penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the benefit amount may be charged. The claim application in Form 10-D of the 1st complainant on 16th April 2003 which is evident from the inward seal in Ext.B4(a). Admittedly the pension payment order is dtd. 17.09.03. ie. After 6 months from the date of receiving the claim. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties have not specified the sufficient cause for this. For calculating the delay with respect to the complainant No.2, there is no evidence before us to show the date on which the claim application had received in 1st and 2nd opposite parties’ office. It is an admitted fact that the pension payment order was passed in the year 14.11.02. But the 2nd complainant failed to prove that there is delay in passing pension payment order by 1st opposite party. The claim application of 3rd complainant in Form D was received in the office of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties on 8th June 2004, which is clearly shown in Ext.B4B. Admittedly the pension payment order was passed on 10.3.05. There caused a delay of 8 months in processing and passing pension payment order. So the complaint No.3 is entitled to get the interest. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of 1st and 2nd opposite parties in calculating the pension and deficiency of service on the part of 3rd opposite party by collecting the contribution during the noncontributing period. So the 1st complainant is entitled to get revised pension payment order for an amount of Rs.396/- per month from 9.5.00 with 6% interest upon the arrears of pension and an amount of Rs.1235/- with 6% interest from the date of collection till realization. The 2nd complainant is also entitled to get a revised pension payment order for an amount of Rs.396/- per month from 11.2.96 with 6% interest from the date of collection till realization. The 3rd complainant is entitled to get Rs.354/- as monthly pension from 11.02.96 onward with 6% interest upon the arrears of pension. Since it is found that there is deficiency of service on the part of all opposite parties, all of them are liable to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost to each complainant and orders passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to pass revised pension payment order of Rs.396/- as monthly pension to 1st and 2nd complainants and Rs.354/- as monthly pension to 3rd complainant and to pay arrears with 6% interest from the respective date of their date of pension. The 3rd opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1235/- to the 1st complainant and Rs.3244/- to the 2nd complainant with 6% interest from the respective date of collection till realization. All the opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings to each complainant. All payments are to be made within one month from the date of receipt of the order; failing which the complainants are at liberty to execute the order as per the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member
A P P E N D I X Exhibits for the complainants: Ext.A1: True copy of Pension Payment Order No.KR/KNR/13050 dtd.17.09.03 in respect of 1st Complainant Ext.A2: VRS Order No.CSF/CMN/1(54)/93-Admn. dtd.30.03.01 issued to 1st Complainant. Ext.A3: Letter No.KR/KNR/16870 dtd.10.03.05 issued by 2nd OP to 2nd complainant. Ext.A4: True copy of the revised Pension Payment Order No.KR/KNR/PPO No.10702/Pension Cell/2004-05 dtd.01.03.05 Ext.A5 series: Letter dtd.11.3.05 issued by Opposite Party. Ext.A6: Letter No.KR/KNR/10737 dtd.14.11.02 issued to 2nd Complainant by 2nd O.P. Exhibits for the Opposite Parties: Ext.B1 (a): Various service particulars of 1st complainant Ext.B1(b): “ 2nd complainant Ext.B1(c): ” 3rd complainant Ext.B2(a): Pension calculation details in respect to 1st Complainant Ext.B2(b): “ 2nd Complainant Ext.B2(c): “ 3rd Complainant Ext.B3(a): Manual calculation in respect of 1st complainant Ext.B3(b): “ 2nd complainant Ext.B3(c): “ 3rd Complainant Ext.B4(a): Application in 10(D) of 1st complainant Ext.B4(b): “ 2nd complainant Ext.B5(a) Forwarding letter of 10(D) dtd.18.02.03 Ext.B5(b) “ dtd.04.06.04 Witness examined for the complainants: PW1t: V.Madhavi Witness examined for the Opposite Parties: DW1 : Bhaskaran.U.V. //Forwarded by Order// Senior Superintendent. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
