Punjab

Sangrur

CC/523/2017

Gur Hakam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Deepak Kumar

20 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    523

                                                Instituted on:      06.10.2017

                                                Decided on:       20.04.2018

 

 

Gur Hakam Singh son of Late Shri Jang Singh (Retired AG-II (D) Food Corporation of India), House No.333, Street No.1, Sardar Basti, Near Ranbir College, Sangrur, Punjab.

                                                        …Complainant

       

                                        Versus

 

1.             Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Urban Estate, Phase-1, Near TV Tower, Bhatinda.

2.             Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office, Sangrur, Near Banasr Bagh.

3.             General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Bay No.34-38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh.

4.             Executive Director (North), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (North) NOIDA (UP)

5.             The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, FCI 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110 001.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Deepak Kumar, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri S.S.Bal, Adv.

For OP No.2 to 5       :       Shri Ajay Bansal, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Shri Gur Hakam Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant worked with the Food Corporation of India from 19.4.1972 to 29.2.2008 and as such was a member of the EPF scheme and was entitled for EPS pension etc.  It is further averred that the pension scheme is based upon the self contribution of the member concerned, which is being deducted from the salary of the employee and further remitted to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhatinda, who is competent to settle the case of the complainant. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that though he applied for his pension claim in May, 2011 with the OP number 2, but the OP number 2 did not forward his pension case for further action in the matter. Further case of the complainant is that the FCI authorities asked the complainant for fresh pension claim documents vide letter dated 18.5.2016, as such the complainant submitted the fresh claim documents, but again the FCI did not forward the claim of the complainant to the RPFC for its settlement, as such, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 4.7.2017 upon the OPs, but the Ops sent a vague reply dated 28.7.2017 taking the excuse that RPFC does not accept incomplete 10-D form. Under the circumstances, the complainant has lastly prayed that the Ops are deficient in service by not settling the pension case of the complainant and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is premature, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that neither the complainant nor the employer has submitted any claim form of the complainant with the OPs. On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2 to 5, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a  consumer, that the complaint is without any just or reasonable basis, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complaint is false, fabricated and vexatious in nature.  On merits, it is admitted that the FCI did not forward the claim of the complainant to the RPFC for its settlement earlier due to incomplete information in the claim form as the complainant did not disclose the name of his wife in his 10-D form and thereafter the matter was discussed with the complainant.  It is further stated that thereafter the pension documents were forwarded to the RPFC Wazirpur vide letter dated 28.10.2017 for settlement of pension. The RPFC is the competent authority to settle the pension. However, it is admitted in para number 23 of the reply that the claim of the complainant was not forwarded to the RPFC till the date of filing of the complaint due to the incomplete and contradictory information submitted by the complainant and now the claim of the complainant has been forwarded to the RPFC vide letter dated 28.10.2017 for settlement of the pension case of the complainant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 to 5 has produced Ex.OP2to5/1 to Ex.OP2to5/8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant being an employee of the FCI was covered under the EPF scheme and was also a member of the pension scheme. It is also not in dispute that the complainant retired from the service of the FCI on 29.2.2008 after serving 36 years.  Now, in the present case, the grievance of the complainant is only that though he submitted the documents to the OPs for settlement of his pension case, but the same has not been settled.

 

7.             Now, the stand of the OP number 1 is that since the OPs number 2 to 5 did not submit the required documents for settlement of the claim of the complainant, as such, the question of settling the pension of the complainant does not arise at all. But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for OP number 1, as the affidavit Ex.OP2to5/1 of Shri Dharam Singh Meena, Area Manager, clearly shows that the pension documents of the complainant were forwarded to the RPFC Wazirpur vide letter number CPF-1/EPS cases/2017/NZ/132 dated 28.10.2017, but we may mention that no copy of such letter dated 28.10.2017 has been produced on record by the OPs number 2 to 5.  There is no explanation from the side of the OPs number 2 to 5 that why they did not produce the copy of letter dated 28.10.2017 on record showing that the OPs number 2 to 5 forwarded the pension case documents of the complainant to OP number 1.   It is no doubt true that a retired person who worked for 36 years and contributed towards the pension fund is suffering and is going from pillar to post to get his own pension.  We feel that ends of justice would be met, if following order is passed.

 

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we direct OP number 2 to 5 to forward the documents regarding pension case of the complainant to OP number 1 within a period of 15 days and thereafter OPs number 1 shall settle the pension case of the complainant within a  further period of 15 days of receipt of the documents from OP number 2 to 5.   OPs number 2 to 5 are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  It is made clear that this amount of Rs.40,000/- be recovered from the guilty official of the OPs number 2 to 5, who did not forward the documents of the pension case of the complainant to OP number 1 for such a  long period.  OPs number 2 to 5 are further directed to pay the compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of this order. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

                                April 20, 2018.                                                  

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                             Presiding Member

 

 

 

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member