D.O.F. 13.06.2003 D.O.O. 29.01.2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President Smt. K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this the 29th day of January, 2011. C.C.No.204/2003 1. P.D. Mathai, S/o. Devasia,Puthanpurackal House, P.O. Keezhpally, Kannur Dist. 2. C. Pathumma, Chevidentekuzhiyil House, : Complainants P.O. Keezhpally, Kannur Dist. 3. V.C. Dominic, S/o. Chacko, Vadakkemuriyil, P.O. Keezhpally, Kannur Dist. (Represented by Adv. Sri. John Joseph) 1. The Secretary, Board of Trustees, EPF, State Farms Corporation of India Ltd., No.14-15, Farms Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 19 2. The Director, Central State Farm Aralam, P.O. Aralam Farm, Via. Peravoor. : Opposite Parties (OP 1&2 represented by Adv.Sashi D. Nambiar) 3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, 8th & 9th Floor, Majoor Bhavan, Connaught circle, New Delhi – 1. 4. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPF Organisation, Sub Regional Office, Fort Road, Kannur – 2. O R D E R Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay the balance amount due to the complainants under their respective EPF account with 12% interest per annum from date of entitlement till realization and to pass revised pension payment orders in respect of EPF accounts of applicants and to pay statutory interest to them at 12% per annum, on the entire pension arrears and the commuted value of pension payable to 3rd complainant from date of entitlement till realization and to direct 1st opposite party to disburse 5 months EPF contribution collected from 2nd complainant and the employer after attainment of 58 years with 12% interest per annum from 05.11.2000 with compensation and cost. The complainants case is that they are employees under 2nd opposite party and their service is terminated during 2001 as per VSS proposed by 2nd opposite party. All the complainants are subscribers to EPF and employees Family Pension Scheme for more than 20 years. Since all the complainants having the same interest in the subject matter, they have authorized the 1st complainant for submitting the complaint. 1st opposite party is administering the EPF accounts of the complainants and is duty bound to maintain the EPF accounts as well as Family Pension accounts. 1st opposite party has to collect the contribution from the complainants towards EPF, Family Pension through 2nd opposite party along with 2nd opposite party’s contribution from Central Government and interest on the amounts so accrued. The 1st opposite party is liable to pay the EPF benefits to the subscribers within 30 days from the date of receipt of application and also have to take necessary steps towards obtainment of Family Pension to the subscribers within 36 days from the date of application through 4th opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is duty bound to process the applications for disbursement of EPF benefit and Family Pension benefit to the complainants expeditiously and sent the same to the 1st opposite party so as to enable the complainants to receive the amount within period. After filing of the complaint the 1st complainant received Pension Payment Order, but there are some defects and short comings in the same. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties have sanctioned Family Pension to the 1st complainant with effect from 26.08.2003 as against the actual date of entitlement on 15.04.2001. So the 1st complainant is entitled to get pension arrears for 28 months more. He is entitled to get 12% interest because the delay is caused due to the negligence of opposite parties and the 3rd and 4th opposite parties have not sanctioned interest due to delayed payment. The monthly salary of 1st complainant was ` 5,555 at the time of retirement and the monthly salary considered by 4th opposite party is not correct. He had 21 years of past service with effect from 01.08.1974 where as only 19 years past service is considered by 4th opposite party. So the 1st complainant is entitled to get ` 805 towards monthly pension. But opposite party has sanctioned only ` 745 towards monthly pension. The colleagues of the complainant having identical service conditions are receiving more than ` 800 towards monthly pension so the Pension Payment Order passed by 4th opposite party is illegal and unsustainable and hence the pension arrears paid is not correct. The 2nd complainant received Pension Payment Order dated 15.10.2003 during November, 2003. The past service and the pensionable salary considered by 4th opposite party is not correct.
The 2nd complainant is entitled to get the statutory minimum of 600 towards monthly pension as against the sum of ` 396 sanctioned by 4th opposite party. The Pension Payment Order was passed after an inordinate delay of more than 3 years and therefore she is entitled to get 12% interest per annum on the pension arrears with effect from 05.11.2000. On 05.11.2000 the 2nd complainant attained 58 years of age and as per the EPF Scheme the age of superannuation is 58, where as 1st opposite party collected EPF contribution from 2nd complainant as well as from 2nd opposite party till the month of March, 2001. So she is entitled to get 5 months EPF contribution from 1st opposite party along with interest. The 3rd complainant received Pension Payment Order dated 16.01.2004 and 4th opposite party has sanctioned pension to him with effect from 08.08.2003. The 4th opposite party has not sanctioned the actual monthly pension payable to 3rd complainant. He is entitled to receive a minimum of ` 763 as monthly pension whereas only a sum of ` 633 is sanctioned to him as monthly pension. The 4th opposite party has not sanctioned the stipulated interest at the rate of 12% interest per annum to the pension arrears as well as to the Commuted Value of Pension in view of inordinate delay of more than 2 years in sanctioning the pension. He is entitled to get pension with effect from 30.03.2001 as he had attained 50 years on the date of retirement and hence he is entitled to get pension arrears for 28 months more. The reduction of ` 63 from the pension already sanctioned to him towards rate of contribution is not proper. All these was happened due to the grave deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and therefore they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainants. The EPF amounts granted to the complainants by opposite party is very law as against their actual entitlement. Even according to the account statement, each complainant are entitled to get more than ` 80,000 towards EPF benefits. None of the complainants were provided with the annual EPF account statement for the year 2000-01 thereby opposite parties have denied the right of the complainants to make objections regarding the same. The 1st complainant retired from service on 15.03.2001. He received a sum of ` 77,835 towards EPF benefits in the month of August, 2001 after an inordinate delay of 5 months and the opposite parties have not provided interest as contemplated by law. As per the calculation of the 1st complainant a further sum of ` 40,000 is due to him towards EPF benefits. The 2nd complainant received only a sum of ` 28,419 towards EPF on 28.03.2002 after an inordinate delay of more than a year from the date of retirement on 26.03.2001. The opposite parties have not granted the statutory interest of 12% per annum on account of delayed payment. Even as per the account statement of EPF, given by 1st opposite party is more than ` 75,000 is accrued in her credit. As per the calculation of 2nd complainant she is entitled for a further sum of ` 45,000 towards EPF benefit. The 3rd complainant retired from service on 30.03.2001. But he has received only a sum of ` 25,308 on 23.04.2002, after an inordinate delay of one year towards EPF benefits as against his entitlement of more than 80,000. The opposite parties have not granted the statutory interest of 12% per annum. All the complainants received portions of their EPF benefits after an inordinate delay as against the statutory period of 30 days. Therefore all the complainants are entitled to get approximately about ` 5,000 each towards interest on account of delayed payment. The cause of action arose in the month of March, 2001 when the complainants retired from service and thereafter within the jurisdiction of this Forum. All the difficulties are caused to the complainants due to the deficient service of opposite parties for which they are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the complaint. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum all opposite parties appeared and filed their version. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed version contending that the complainants are not consumers as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Act Since they had not availed of any service from opposite parties for consideration. The relationship between 2nd opposite party and the complainants was that of an employer-employee and hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The grievance of the complainants is that the pension is not being disbursed to them till date and hence that is to be decided by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and hence they have to implead as parties. The complainants had retired from service under the VSS and on retiring, they had been paid the exgratia amount and other retirement benefits including the amounts under their EPF account accrued till date of their retirement. There is no merit in the complainants statement that they are entitled for more than ` 80,000 from their EPF account. This is not correct. During the period 1996-97 an amount of ` 37,383.50 had accrued to 1st complainant’s EPF account. After taking the addition to his EPF account and advance drawn etc for the period 1997-98 to 2000-01 an amount of ` 68.825.50 had accrued to the account of 1st complainant as on 31.03.2001. As against this amount of 68,825.50 an amount of ` 78,216 had been paid to him on 21.09.2001. This amount includes the interest on the amount of ` 68,825.50 calculated upto the previous month of payment. As regards the 2nd complainant, it is submitted that as on 31.03.2000 an amount of ` 30,112.5 had accrued to her EPF account. After taking into account her contribution, drawal advance etc during 2000-01, the total balance available in her credit as on 31.03.2001 was ` 34,546.50. As against the amount of ` 34,546.50, she was paid an amount of ` 38,107 on 23.04.2002. This amount is with interest on the amount of ` 34,546.50 calculated upto the previous month of payment. As regards the 3rd complainant it is submitted that as on 31.03.2001 there was an amount of ` 22,789 accrued to his EPF account. As against the amount of ` 22,789 he was paid an amount of ` 25,308 on 23.04.2000. This amount is with interest on the amount of ` 22,789 calculated upto the previous month of payment. The delay caused was owing to the fact that about 400 employees and 120 staff had simultaneously left the company and processing of all applications took time. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are in no way liable in disbursing the pension to the complainants and hence not caused any personal or financial loss to the complainants nor have treated them with indifference and hence the complaint against 1st and 2nd opposite parties is liable to be dismissed. As per the contentions raised by 1st and 2nd opposite parties, the supplemental opposite party No.3 & 4 are impleaded and in pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum they appeared and filed their version. According to the 3rd and 4th opposite parties, the 3rd opposite party is having the jurisdiction to sanction monthly pension as the establishment falls within the jurisdiction of 3rd and 4th opposite parties. 4th opposite party is liable to disburse the amount since the complainant has opted to receive the monthly retirement pension through a bank under the jurisdiction to 4th opposite party. The 1st complainant’s statement that actual date of entitlement of pension is 15.04.2001 and hence he is entitled to get pension arrears for 28 months more is not correct. The application for pension in respect of the 1st complainant was received in the office of 3rd opposite party on 26.08.2003. As per law the complainant is eligible for monthly retirement pension from a date immediately following the date of 58 years of age not withstanding that the member had retired or ceased to be in employment before that date. The relevant statutory provision is contained in para 12(6) of EPS 1995. The application for pension was received on 26.08.2003 in the office of 3rd opposite party and Pension Payment Order has been issued by 4th opposite party on 13.01.2004 and the total period taken by both offices for processing the claim is only 4 months and 17 days. The statement that the 1st complainant’s monthly salary was ` 5,555 at the time of retirement is not relevant since the maximum ceiling limit of salary to be contributed towards EPF scheme was ` 5,000 upto 01.06.2001. The pensionable salary is the average of 12 month’s salary immediately preceding the month of retirement. As per the description roll of the complainant duly signed by both the employer and employee, the last salary drawn is 5,000. The statement that the complainant has 21 years of past service is not correct. As the date of commencement of the complainant under Family Pension Scheme 1971 is 15.02.1975 and after deducting a total period of 1 year and 7 months break between 15.02.1975 to 15.11.1995 the total past service is 19 years and 2 months which is rounded to 19 years is correct. The contention that the 1st complainant is entitled to get a sum of ` 805 towards monthly pension whereas the opposite party has sanctioned only ` 745 is not correct. EPF organization has taken utmost care to ensure that no mistake is crept in the calculation of pension and related benefits. Keeping this in view the EP Scheme, 1995 has been computerized for computing the details of existing members, existing pensioners and calculation of pension generation of pension payment order. Unless the data fed to the EDP system is erroneous, the calculation of pension cannot be wrong. The calculation of monthly pension is based on more than 11 factors and if any of the factor is varied, the monthly pension from individual to individual may be varied. Regarding complainant No.2 her date of commencement under Family Pension Fund Scheme, 1971 is 01.01.1982. So she has 13 years 10 months and 14 days past service upto 15.11.1995 which is rounded to 14 years. Similarly as she attained 58 years of age on 05.11.2000 her pensionable service from 16.11.1995 is 4 years 11 months and 19 days which is rounded to 5 years. As per the wage particulars, the average salary for last 12 months prior to 10/2000 is ` 1991. The contention that 2nd complainant is entitled to get statutory minimum of ` 600 towards monthly pension is not correct. The monthly pension is calculated on the basis of the particulars furnished by the employer of the complainant. The allegation that 4th opposite party has sanctioned pension to her after an inordinate delay of more than 3 years is also not correct. As per the seal affixed on the application for pension is Form 10D, the date of receipt of application in the office of 3rd opposite party is 27.01.2003 and Pension Payment Order passed on 15.10.2003. A total period of 9 months and 18 days were taken by 3rd and 4th opposite parties in processing pension papers of the complainant. The monthly pension has been sanctioned to the complainant with effect from date on attaining 58 years of age. A total amount of ` 12.413 towards arrears for the period from 05.11.2000 to 09.10.2003 has been paid along with the 1st month pension. There is no provision under EP Scheme 1995 to pay interest on pension arrears. The monthly pension has been sanctioned from a date earlier to her retirement eventhough the application was submitted after retirement. So the above stated delay of 9 month 18 days may be treated as a reasonable delay. Since there is involvement of two different offices situated at distant places and were also required verification of several documents. The claim of 3rd complainant is that he is entitled to get a minimum of ` 763 as monthly pension as per the provision of EPS 1995 is not correct. The opposite party sanctioned pension as per the provision of EPS 1995. The opposite party has decided the date of commencement of pension with reference to the express provisions contained n para 12 (6), (7) and (8) of EPS 1995 read with administration instruction issued by Central Provident Fund Commissioner as per para 12(8) of EPS 1995. As per 7,6,5 of manual of accounting procedure, EPS 1995, the criteria for determination of reduced pension will be on the age at which the member opted the reduced pension and not the date of his leaving service or the age of attaining 50 years. As per para 7(6)(6) the age is determined for the above purpose, as on the date of application (Form 10D) and the reduction of 3% at reducing balance is applied. The date given in the application by the member, if not the employee or in the absence of both, the date of receipt of application in the office, with reference dated office seal affixed by the inward section, should be taken into account only the completed age on the date of application should be taken and there is no rounding of age. The claim of the complainant for reduced pension from the date of exit is not sustainable. He is only eligible for pension from the date of receipt of application for pension in Form 10D ie from 08.08.2003. ` 63 is deducting towards return of capital as per para 13(1) of EPS 1995. As per this the complainant is eligible for 90% of original monthly pension after deducting 10%. Pension has been sanctioned to 3rd complainant on 15.01.2003 with effect from 05.11.2000 on the date of attaining 58 years of age eventhough she left service on 26.03.2001 and the application was submitted on 27.01.2003. The EPF accounts of the complainants are maintained by 1st opposite party. Since the 3rd opposite party has sanctioned pension the statement of 3rd complainant that he has not received pension became infructuous and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complainants are consumers and Forum has jurisdiction to try the case? 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? 3. Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief? 4. Relief and cost? The evidence in the above case consists of the exhibits A1 to A7 and B1 to B10. Issue No.1 : The 1st & 2nd opposite parties filed version contending that the complainants are not consumers as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, since the relationship between 2nd opposite party and the complainants was that of an employer-employee. But it is a well settled position of law that the member of a EPF and miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 is a consumer under Act since the Hon’ble Apex Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Shivkumar Joshi held that the member of scheme is a consumer and the same was reported in 2000NCJ SC (185). So we hold the view that the complainants are consumers under the Act and the Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainants. The complainants further case is that they are members under EPF and the opposite parties has not disbursed their EPF benefits, pension, family pension in time and in proper manner and above this the 1st opposite party had collected 5 months more contributions even after he had attained 58 years of age. In order to prove their case they have produced documents such as Annual EPF statement of account for the year 1996-97 of 1st complainant, 1st complainant’s application for monthly pension, Annual EPF statement of account of 1999-2000 of 2nd complainant, copy of lawyer notice dated 19.08.2002, 09.03.2003 and reply notices dated 21.09.2002 and 25.03.2003. In order to substantiate the contentions, the opposite parties also produced documents. They are copy of pension applications of all complainants, copy of registered letters issued by EPF organization, regional office of Delhi, description roll of the 1st complainant, pension work sheets and computation of pension of all complainants. In order to answer issue No.2 the grievances regarding all the complainants has to be considered separately. Regarding the 1st complainant he has the following grievances. 1st grievance is that he has received only a sum of ` 77,835 towards EPF benefit in the month of August, 2001 after an inordinate delay of 5 months in spite of filing due application immediately after his retirement. As per his calculation he is entitled to get a further sum of ` 40,000 in order to substantiate this he has produced Ext.A1 ie Annual EPF statement of account for the year 1996-97. Admittedly the 1st complainant retired from service on 15.03.2001. No other documents are before us to prove the contentions of the 1st complainant. Eventhough the Forum has directed the 1st opposite party to produce the EPF account of the complainants as per the applications of the complainants, they have not produced the documents. Instead of producing the documents the 1st opposite party filed an affidavit to the effect that the entire records pertaining to the EPF account of the complainants along with other employees have already forwarded to the EPF authorities. But the complainant has not taken any further steps to call for the EPF statement for the remaining years. As per A1, ` 27383.50 is the closing balance as on March 1997. But according to 1st and 2nd opposite parties during 1996-97 an amount of ` 37,383.50 had accrued and after taking the addition to his EPF account and advance drawn etc for the period 1997-98 to 2000-01 an amount of ` 68,825.50 had accrued to the account of the 1st complainant as on 31.03.2001 and an amount of ` 78,216 had been paid to the account of 1st complainant including the interest on the amount of ` 68,825.50 upto previous month of payment. This statement is not challenged by the 1st complainant. So in the absence of documents and considering the above aspect we hold the view that the 1st complainant is not entitled to any more amount as his EPF benefits. Secondly the 1st complainant has the grievance that there is some defects and short coming in the Pension Payment Order passed by 3rd and 4th opposite parties. Actually he is entitled to pension from 15.04.2001. But PPO was ordered with effect from 26.08.2003 and hence she is entitled to get 28 months pension arrears more with 12% interest. Besides this as per the above stated PPO the 3rd and 4th opposite parties ordered only ` 745 instead of is entitlement of ` 805 as monthly pension. According to 1st complainant his monthly salary is ` 5,555 and having 21 years of service with effect from 01.08.1974, where as only 19 years past service is considered at the time of passing pension payment order. But according to 3rd opposite party the complainant is eligible for pension from a date immediately following the date of attaining 58 years of age. Moreover the application for pension was received on 26.08.2003 by 3rd and 4th opposite parties on 13.01.2004. But as per Section 12(b) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, a member shall be entitled to early pension if he has rendered eligible service of 10 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years. As per Section 12(7) a member if he so desires, may be allowed to draw an early pension from a date earlier than 58 years of age but not earlier than 50 years of age. In such cases the amount of pension shall be reduced at the rate of 3% for every year the age falls short of 58 year. Accordingly particulars regarding the 1st complainant is as follows. Date of Birth : 01.12.1948 Date of joining service : 05.04.1971 Date of joining EPF : 01.08.1974 Date of Exit (retirement) : 15.03.2001 Date of attaining 58 years : 01.12.2006 Average Salary : ` 5000 The ext.B1 shows that the application for monthly pension of 1st complainant is received in the office of 3rd opposite party is 26.08.2003. The ext.B1 is the photocopy of application for monthly pension of the 1st complainant ie form 10D. The date of receipt of application was shown by 3rd opposite party by a seal of their own as 26.08.2003. But the complainant has produced ext.A2 which is the original of B1 lacks page no.5. But in page no.5 of A2, the date of application is shown as 27.12.2002. So as per section 12(7) of EP Scheme 1995 a member can draw his earlier pension if he so desires and accordingly the member is entitled to get pension from 2003 January onwards, that is from the next month of date of his application. So we hold the view that the complainant is entitled to get reduced pension from 2003 January onwards. Regarding quantum of the pension also the complainant contended that he is entitled to get 805 instead of ` 745. But as per the particulars with respect to 1st complainant as shown above the date of commencement of pension of 1st complainant is on 02.12.2006 ie the date of commencement of pension of 1st complainant ie after 16th November, 2005 and the complainant is an existing member. So the pension of the 1st complainant can be tabulated as per Section 12(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Accordingly the superannuation or early pension shall be equal to the aggregate of (a) Pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of pensionable service rendered from 16th November, 1995 or ` 635 per month which ever is more. (b) Past service pension shall be the past service pension payable on completion of 58 years of age on the 16th November 1995. Accordingly the period of pensionable service from 16.11.1995 to 16.03.2001 = 5 year 4 months. According to B5 the pensionable salary is = ` 5000 Monthly member’s pension = Pensionable salary x pensionable service 70 So monthly member’s pension = 5000x5 /70 = 357.14 = ` 357 But as per Section 12(3)(i)(a) pension as determined under sub paragraph (2) for the period of pensionable service rendered from 16.11.1995 or ` 635 per month whichever is more. So the pension as per 12(3)(1)(a) = ` 635 As per 12(3)(i)(b) The complainant has 19 years of past service and pensionable salary is ` 5000, the past service pension payable on completion of 58 years age on 16.11.95 as per column shown in Section 12(3)(i)(b) is = ` 135. According to the complainant he has 21 years of past service, but opposite party contended that he has only 19 years of past service. But as per Ext.B8 the past service is shown as 19 years. No other document is before us to show that he has more than 19 years past service. So we consider the past service as 19 years. The factor as per table B since the complainant had required less than 12 years to complete 58 years as on 16.11.1995 is 2.992. So as per sec.12(3)(b) = 135x2-992 = ` 403.92 So the aggregate of (a)+(b) = 635 + 403.92 = ` 1038.93 As per section 12(7) a member may be allowed to draw an early pension from a date earlier than 58 years of age but not earlier than 50 years of age. In such cases the amount of pension shall be reduced at the rate of 3% for every year the age falls short of 58 years. It is found that the complainant is entitled to get reduced pension from 01.01.2003. The complainant will attain 58 years as on 01.12.2006. So the complainant is entitled to get pension (1039-124.68 = 914). So it is found that the 1st complainant is entitled to get ` 914 as monthly pension from 01.01.2003 and the 3rd and 4th opposite parties have to pay the balance amount of pension to the complainant with 12% interest upon the pension from 01.01.2003 to date of pension payment and upon the balance pension for which the complainant is entitled. The grievances of 2nd complainant is also same as that of the 1st complainant. According to her she was received only ` 28,419 towards EPF benefits eventhough more than ` 75,000 is accrued in her credit and she was received the amount after an inordinate delay of more than one year. In order to prove this she has produced Ext.A3 ie Annual EPF statement of account for the year 1999-2000. Admittedly the 2nd complainant retired from service on 26.03.2001. No other documents are before us to prove her case. As per A3 the net closing balance as on March, 2000 in her EPF account is ` 30,112.5. The account statement for the year 2000-01 is not produced before the Forum. But according to 1st and 2nd opposite parties they have paid an amount of ` 38,107 on 23.04.2002 to the complainant and the version of the 1st and 2nd opposite party is not disputed by the 2nd complainant. So we hold the view that the 2nd complainant is not entitled to any more amount as per EPF benefits. The other grievances of the 2nd complainant is that the PPO issud by 3rd opposite party is not proper and correct. She is entitled to get the statutory minimum of ` 600 as monthly. Pension instead of ` 396 and hence she is entitled to get more than ` 20,000 towards the pension and she had received the pension after an inordinate delay of more than 3 years and hence is entitled to get 12% interest per annum on the entire pension arrears and also she is entitled to get 5 months EPF contribution from 1st opposite party along with interest. The particulars with respect to the 2nd complainant is as follows. Date of Birth : 05.11.1942 Date of Joining EPF : 01.01.1982 Date of Exit (Retirement) : 26.03.2001 Date of attaining 58 years : 05.11.2000 Average Salary : ` 2,463 (as per data produced by 3rd opposite party) As per the above particulars the 2nd complainant’s pension commence from 06.11.2000 and hence she is entitled to early pension as per Section 12(5) of the EPS, 1995. As per this section 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 16th November, 1995 or ` 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 a minimum of ` 500 per month provided the eligible service is 24 years; provided if it is less than 24 years pension shall be proportionately lesser but subject to the minimum of ` 265 per month. So as per Section 15(1)(a) Monthly member’s pension =Pensionable salary x Pensionable service/70 Penisonable service from 16.11.1995 to 26.03.2001 = 5 Year 3 months = 2463X5/70 = 175.92 = ` 176 So as per Sec 12(5) (a) = ` 335 (b) Past service pension Past service = 14 years So the amount as per column shown in Sec 12(3)(1)(b) = 95 The factor as per table B since the complainant had required less than 5 years to complete 58 year on 16.11.1995 = 1.536 So as per Sec 12(3)(b) = 95x1.536 145.92 The aggregate of (a) and (b)= 335+145.92 = 480.92 Minimum as per Sec 12(5) (ii) = ` 500 Since the complainant has only 19 years of service the pension as per Sect 12 (5)(i) = 500(500x15/100) = ` 425 The 2nd complainant is entitled to get 425 as monthly pension. As per Ext.B2 the date of application of pension is 12.10.2001. As stated earlier, as per Sect 12(5)(7) the member can apply for earlier pension upon his decision and hence the complainant is entitled to get pension with effect from 12.10.2001 ie the date of application. But regarding delay as per Ext.B2 it is seen that the application for pension was reached before 3rd opposite party only on 27.01.2003. Eventhough the complainant had applied on 12.10.2001. So the delay, is caused on the part of 2nd opposite party and he is liable to compensate the complainant for the delay caused. There caused one year 3 months delay on the part of 2nd opposite party for which the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay 12% interest for the pension amount upto 15.10.2003. The complainant contended that the 1st opposite party has collected contribution from 05.11.2000 ie after attaining 58 years till the month of 2001. But there is no document before us to prove the same and we discarded these contentions as such. The grievances of the 3rd complainant are also same as that of 1st and 2nd complainant. According to the 3rd complainant the opposite parties paid only a sum of ` 25,308 instead of entitlement ` 80,000 after an inordinate delay of one year. But no documents are before us to substantiate these contentions and hence the complainant is failed to prove the contentions so we held that there is no merit in this case. Yet other contentions of the 3rd complainant is that he is entitled to receive ` 763 as monthly pension instead of ` 633 and hence the PPO is not correct. Moreover there is inordinate delay of more than 2 years and he is entitled to get pension arrear for 28 more months also and the reduction of ` 63 from the pension towards ROC is also not proper. But according to opposite party as per the particulars given by employer the pension calculated is correct. The particulars regarding the 3rd complainant is as follows. Date of Birth : 02.01.1947 Date of Joining EPF : 01.10.1981 Date of retirement : 30.03.2001 Date of attaining 58 years : 02.01.2005 Average Salary : ` 1996 (as per document produced by opposite party) As per the above particulars the 3rd complainant is entitled to pension as per Section 12(4) of EPS 1995 since his pension commence from 03.01.2005. As per Section 12(4) an existing member and in respect of whom the date of commencement of pension in between the 16th November, 2000 and 16th November, 2005. So as per Section 12 4(1)(a) monthly member’s pension = Pensionable salary X Pensionable service 70 Pensionable salary = ` 1996 Pensionable salary from 16.11.1995 to 30.03.2001 = 5 Year 3 months. = 1996X5/70 = 142.57 As per Section 12(4)(i)(a) Pension = ` 438 Pension as per Section 12(4)(1)(b) Since the complainant has 14 years past service and salary is below 2500, the amount as per Section 12(3)(b) = ` 95 The factor as per table B since the complainant had required less than 10 year to complete 58 years as on 16.11.1995 = 2.473 = 95+2.473 = 234.935 Aggregate of (a) and (b) = 438 + 234.93 = 672.9 = ` 673 So the third complainant is entitled to get reduced pension of ` 673 per month. The 3rd complainant further contended that she is entitled to get 28 months pension more. But the complainant has not produced any document to prove this and hence we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this contention. The 3rd complainant is entitled to get balance amount of pension from 16.01.2004 to the date of realization with 12% interest. So from the above discussion it is seen that there is deficiency in the service of 2nd opposite party in sending the application of the 2nd complainant in time to 3rd opposite party and deficiency on the part of 3rd and 4th opposite parties in computing the pension of all complainants promptly and correctly. It is found that there is no deficiency of service on the part of 1st opposite party and hence 1st opposite party is exonerate from the liability. So the 1st complainant is entitled to a monthly pension of ` 914 with effect from 01.01.2003 and to get balance amount of pension with 12% interest from 01.01.2003 upto the date of receipt of the amount. The 2nd complainant is also entitled to get ` 425 as monthly pension from 12.10.2001 and also entitled to get 12% interest upon the balance amount of pension from 27.01.2003 and upto date of receipt from the 3rd and 4th opposite parties. The 2nd complainant is also entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% upon ` 425 from 12.10.2001 to 27.01.2003 from 2nd opposite party. The 3rd complainant is entitled to get ` 673 as monthly pension and is entitled to get balance amount with 12% interest from 16.01.2004. The complainants are entitled to get ` 1500 each as cost of the proceedings from 2nd, 3rd and 4th opposite parties and order passed accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed partly directing the 3rd and 4th opposite parties (1) To issue revised pension payment order to 1st complainant for a monthly pension of ` 914 (Rupees Nine hundred and fourteen only) with effect from 01.01.2003 and to pay balance amount of pension with 12% interest from 01.01.2003 upto the date of receipt of the amount. (2) To issue revised pension payment order to 2nd complainant for a monthly pension of ` 425 (Rupees Four hundred and twenty five only) with effect from 12.10.2001 and to pay balance amount of pension from 12.10.2001 with 12% interest upon the balance amount from 27.01.2003 upto date of receipt. (3) To issue revised pension payment order to 3rd complainant for a monthly pension of ` 673 (Rupees Six hundred and seventy three only) with effect from 16.01.2004 and to pay balance amount with 12% interest upto date of receipt. And also directing 2nd opposite party to pay 12% interest upon the pension amount of ` 42.5 (Four Hundred and Twenty Five only) from 12.10.2001 to 27.01.2003 to the 2nd complainant. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th opposite parties are further directed to pay ` 1500 (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) each as cost to all complainants. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th opposite parties are directed to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of 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 APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Annual EPF Statement of Account for the year 1996-97. A2. Copy of the application submitted by C1 for disbursement of F.P. A3. Annual Account Statement of 1999-00. A4. Copy of lawyer notice dated 19.08.2002. A5. Copy of reply sent by 2nd OP dated 21.09.2002. A6. Copy of the lawyer notice sent on behalf of C3 dated 09.03.2003. A7. Reply for 2nd OP dated 25.03.2003 Exhibits for the opposite party B1. Application F-10D(EPS) in respect of C1. B2. Application F-10D(EPS) in respect of C2. B3. Application F-10D(EPS) in respect of C3. B4. Details of Pensioner (C1) dated 29.12.03. B5. Description Roll of the Member. B6. Details of Pensioner (C2) dated 24.09.2003. B7. Details of Pensioner (C3) dated 02.01.2004. B8. Pension worksheet of C1. B9. Pension worksheet of C2. B10.Pension worksheet of C3. Witness examined for the complainant Nil Witness examined for the opposite party Nil /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
