Complaint No CC/14/86 Complaint Filed Date ः 15/01/2015
MA/14/10 Order Date ः 13/05/2016
Complainant/Applicant :- 1. Shrimati Najukabai Meshram
Aged-62 yrs., Occ. Nothing
R/o-Chicholi Bhagadi
Tal.Lakandur Dist.Bhandara
-: Vs. :-
Opposite Party/Non Applicant :- 1. The Secreatry
Mahatma Gandhi Vidaylaya
Chichal/Barhva
Tal.Lakandur Dist.Bhandara
2. The Headmaster
Mahatma Gandhi Vidaylaya
Chichal/Barhva
Tal.Lakandur Dist.Bhandara
3. Education Officer(Secondary) Zilla Parishad,
Bhandara
4. Mahalekhakar Officer
Mahalekhakar Office
Nagpur, Dist.Nagpur
Corum :- Hon’ble Atul D. Alsi - President
Hon’ble Sau.Chandrika K.Bais – Member
Hon’ble Hemantkumar Pateria - Member
Advocate For Complainant :- Adv.Mahendra Goswami
Advocate For Opposite Party :- Adv. Gupte and Adv.Pande
( Delivered by Shri Atul D.Alsi, Hon’ble President)
-// Order //-
(Passed On Dated 13/05/2016)
The complaint has filed a complaint for grant of in rest for delay in getting sanction of family pension on the death of husband of complainant along with compensation.
THE STORY OF THE COMPLAINT IS AS UNDER :-
1. The husband of complainant was in service with O.P.No 1(Secreatry Mahatma Gandhi School) & of No2 (Head Master Mahatma Gandhi School) at Bhandara. The O.P. No 3 is education officer & No4 is Auditor & controller of Govt. of Maharashtra.
The complainant husband died on 7/10/2012 while serving under the employmnet of O.P. No 1&2. The complainant is only legal heir of deceased.
After the death of husband of complainant, the complainant received the family pension amounted to Rs. 33872/-. The complainant has no grivence about family pension amount but there was intentional delay on the part of O.P. to get sanction of pension from 8/10/2002 to 4/8/2011. Therefore the opposite parties are liable to pay interest and compensation for delay on the part of opposite parties.
The complainant had moved reminder letters on 1/10/2013, 12/12/2013 & 28/1/2014. The complainant was sole caring member of family. In fact the pension need to be sanctioned within 3 to 4 months in due cause of time as per Govt. rules but the opposite parties did not take step to sanction the family pension in due cause of time. Therefore the complainant has issued legal notice on 13/8/2014 through counsel but opposite parties & it took more than 9 years, so it is inordinate delay and therefore it amount to negligency of seize on the part of, hence all opposite parties are liable to pay interest on 33872/- the amount of family pension alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs. 5,000/- to complainant.
2. The complaint is admitted & notice is issued on 15/1/2015.
3. The opposite party NO 1 filed its reply and stated on oath as Anandrao Istari Meshram was serving as Parichar in Mahatma Gandhi Vidyalaya, Chichal (Barwha). He died on 7/10/2002. He served since 1/7/1991 to 7/10/2002. He had left complainant prior to 10 yrs.of his death. He was living with one Ahillyabai at Kholmara. He died while living with Ahillyabai at Kholmara. The complainant started to prefer an application since 16/09/2002 for claiming the various amounts after the death of A.I.Meshram. One Ahillyabai was also claiming herself to be a widow of deceased A.I.Meshram & preferred an application on 24/04/2003, claiming therein the receivable amount after the death of Meshram.
As two claims from two different persons were preferred before N.A.No 2, he asked to bring the Succession Certificate to resolve the dispute of Lrs. Of deceased Meshram and to finalize the matter once for all.
The complainant herself did not provide necessary documents including Succession Certificate, Talathi Certificate, Rs.100/- stamp paper for sammati patra, affidavit on Rs.100/- stamp paperetc. And therefore the proposal could not be submitted at earliest.
There was no clearance about fixation of salary of deceased Meshram as per 5th pay commission and therefore matter was referred to Senior Auditor, Education Department, Bhandara on 5/2/2009 which was admitted/approved. Ultimately, the complainant submitted remarriage certificate on 25/4/2011 and affidavit on 30/11/2010 and Kutumb Niwaran Praman Patra on 9/3/2010. Therefore matter delayed due to her own conduct. The N.A. No4 approved family pension on 9/2/2011 vide letter No 60049995 and order No 14100847605.
The present complaint is barred by limitation as complainant did not file any complaint before Hon’ble Forum immediately after getting deposited the amount of Rs.3,38,721/- in her account on 4/8/2011. The non applicants No 1 & 2 submit that the present complaint accordingly is liable to be dismissed outrightly with costs, in the interest of Justice.
4. The O.P. No 3 has filed reply on page No 44. The O.P.No3 has submitted that the complainants husband was working under O.P. No 1&2 from 1/7/1991 to 7/10/2002. As per rules and regulations the process of sanctioned carried by O.P. Hence there is no delay on the part of O.P. No 3. It is the duty of O.P. No 1 & 2 to submit proposal with all documents to O.P. No 3, hence no delay on the part of O.P. No 3, hence case may be dismissed against O.P. No 3.
5. The O.P. No 4 served but not appeared hence case proceed Ex-party against O.P. No 4 as per order passed on Ex-1 dt. 14/5/2015.
6. The complainant and O.P. No 1 & 2 filed evidence by way of affidivit on record.
7. The documents filed by complainant on record from page no13 to 25.
8. The document filed by O.P. 1 & 2 from page no 73 to 126
9. The counsel for complainant Adv.Goswami argued that the complainant issued reminder on 1/10/2013, 12/12/2012, 28/1/2014 but O.P. No 1 and 2 did not complied but O.P.No 3 has taken cognizance & issued letter 643/14 dt 17/2/14 directed to pay interest of late submission of pension proposal with O.P.No 3. There was delay on the part of O.P. No 1 & 2 for late submission of proposal for the period beyond 9 years. The complainant has submitted all documents as and when demanded by O.P. No 1 & 2 to send all relevant documents which are in the custody of them. The complainant is illiterate and filling case within limitation for the cause of action arose on 4/8/2011 when O.P.No.1 to 4 has disbursed the amount of family pension and thereafter continuously & also on 17/2/2014 when O.P.No 3 directed to O.P.No 1 & 2 to pay interest on family pension for delayed disbursement. The complainant has filed application for condonation of delay as a precautionary measure but actually there is no delay in filing case because cause of action is continuous.
10. The counsel for O.P. No 1 & 2 Adv.Gupte argued that the amount of family pension credited to complainant on 4/8/2011. The complaint is filed on 4/12/2014. No notice can extend the cause of action. Ahillyabai was also claiming herself to be widow of deceased & filed application at 24/4/2003 for claiming amount under pension. The N.A. No 2 called to submit succession certificate. Two different ‘Ration Card’ were filed on record by the two widows claiming as heir of deceased. The complainant did not supplied the relevant documents to family pension inspite of several letters were issued to complainant. There was delay on the part of complainant. Hence the complainant is solely responsible for delay for sanction of family pension. The case is not within limitation . Hence it deserve to be dismissed with cost.
11. The O.P. No 3 argued that the after receipt of proposal for family pension it was sanctioned in due course of time and amount has been paid hence there is no deficieny on the part of O.P.No3 & there is delay then O.P. No 1 & 2 are responsible for delay hence case may be dismiss againt O.P.No 3.
1) Whether there is deficiceny on the part of O.P.No 1 to 4
to submitting the proposal for pension for sanction & in
disposal of pension case? - Yes
2) What Order - As Per Final Order
Reasioning & Findings
12. The deceased Anandrao Meshram was serving as attendant in school since 1/7/91 to 7/10/2012 & died on 7/10/2002. The amount of Rs.3,38,721/-was paid to complainant as family pension on 4/8/2011. This fact is admitted by O.P.No 1 & 2. Hence it is proved that the deceased was under employment of O.P. No 1 & 2.
1. The complainant is consumer and opposite parties are service provider for sanction of pension and other ancilliary benefits. Hence there is consmerable interest and therefore the consumer forum has jurisdication to execute the complaint.
2. The process of sanction of pension case is continuing therefore the cause of action by putting the law in motion is continuous. Therefore the case is filed within a limitation period.
3. The process of completion of pension case was started from 4/2/2002 & completed on August 2011. The opposite parties filed document of correspondence for completion of process of pension from 4/2/2002 to 12/4/2004 & thereafter from 16/1/10 to sanction of pension. There is no proper and legitimate explanation on the part of opposite parties for the period of delay from 2004 to2010. The complainant is illiterate and no knowledge of procedure & rules about process for sanction of pension case. The opposite parties have filed documents and sought information on similar grounds by number of times. It is the duty of opposite party to get completed the pension case within a reasonable time. The delay for completion of pension case was unreasonable delay hence opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to complainant as per following order.
ORDER
- The complaint case is partly allowed.
- Each opposite partites are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- each to the complainant for compensation towards mental torture.
- Each opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,500/- each to the complainant towards litigation charges.
- Opposite parties shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
(Hemantkumar Pateria) (Sau.Chandrika K.Bais) (Atul D. Alsi)
Member Member President
Dist. Consumer Forum,
Bhandara
