D.O.F. 30.04.2003 D.O.O.01.03.2011 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 1st day of March 2011 C.C.No.130/2003 1.P.M.John,Palakkuzhiyil House, P.O.Keezhpally, 2. M.G.Thankamma, Mulamoottil House, Markigode,P.O.Keezhpally. 3.V.Mathew, Koliyakkott House,P.O.Keezhpally. Complainants 4.K.P.Pathumma,Koottayiparambil House, Chathiruroor,P.o.Keezhpally 5.K.Pathumma, Vengakkal House, Kozhiyode, P.O.keezhpally 6.K.J.Thomas, KunnathettuHouyse, Karikkottakkari,P.O.Koomanthode. 7.Thomas Mathew, Pallithazhath House, Chathirur P.O.Keezhpally. 8. P.Chandu,Chennapoyil House, Vietnam Tribal colony, P.O.Keezhpally. 9. K.Thankappan, Kaniicharvilyil House, Chathiroor,P.O.keezhpally. (Rep. by Adv. John Joseph) 1.The Secretary, Board of Trustees, EPF, State Farms Corporation of India Ltd., 14,15, Farms Bhavan, Nehru Place, Opposite Parties New Delhi. (Rep. by Adv.U.K.Ramakrishnan) 2.Director, Central State Farm, Aralam, P.O. Aralam Farm, 670 673. 3.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund organization, Regional Office, 8th 9th floor, Mayoor Bhavan,Cannaught Circus, New Delhi 1. 4. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPF Organisation, Sub Regional Office, Fort Road, Kannur. 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 1 and 2 to pay the balance amount duet o the complainant under the EPF account with 12% interest per annum from the date of entitlement till realization and to repay the EPF contribution collected from the complainants and the employer after the attainment of 58 years of age with 12% interest and directing opposite arties 3 and 4 to pass proper pension payment orders in respect of complainants Nos. 1,2,4,5 and 9 and immediate sanctioning of family pension to 7th complainant with compensation and cost. The brief facts of the complainants case are as follows:- The complainants were workers under the 2nd opposite party were terminated as per VSS during 2001 and were subscribers of EPF. The 1st opposite party is administering the EPF accounts of the complainants and is duty bound to maintain EPF accounts and family pension accounts as per EPF Act. The 1st opposite party is liable to pay the EPF benefits to the subscribers within 30 days from the date of application and also liable to take necessary steps towards obtainment of family pension to the subscribers within 30 days from the date of application for family pension through opposite parties 3 and 4. 2nd opposite party is duty bound to provide application for disbursement of EPF benefits and family pension benefits to the complainants and sent to 1st opposite party. All the complainants had filed application for EPF and family Pension benefits immediately after retirement. But the complainants received the benefit only after an inordinate delay of about one year. More over the benefits granted to the complainants are very low as against their entitlements as per their EPF account statement. The complainants were not provided the annual statement for the year 2000-2001 and hence the complainants were not able to make objection. But according to the complainants they are entitled to get more than `80000 towards EPF benefits. There is gross deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in providing EPF benefits and disbursing the EPF pension. These caused delay of more than one year and hence the complainants are entitled to 12% interest. Moreover the complainants could not receive family pension benefits and hence the complainants are entitled to receive compensation. More over the opposite parties are liable to repay the EPF contribution collected from the complainants and the employer after the attainment of 58 years of age with 12% interest per annum till realization. The complainants later on amended the complaint. According to the amended portions all the complainants except the 7th complainant received the pension payment orders during October, November 2003. The 7th complainant’s received a letter from 2nd opposite party asking him to send From 10 D application in the revised format. Even though he had sent the same his grievance remains. On going through the PPO issued to other complainants the following defects are found. The 1st opposite party has not repaid the EPF contributions from the complaints as well as the employer to all the complainants after attaining 58 years age and hence all complainants are entitled to get the EPF subscriptions collected by the 1st opposite party with 12% interest. The pensionable salary and the past service considered by4th opposite party in PPO of all complainants except 7th complainant is not correct. The 1st complainant received PPO dt.17.9.03 for a sum of `519 per month as his pension. But as per the particulars he is entitled to get at least `600 per month as monthly pension. The 2nd complainant is also entitled to get 600 per month as pension. But the PPO issued to her is only for 503 4th and 5th complainant received the PPO sanctioning a partly amount as monthly pension against their entitlement of `600. The 9th complainant received PPO for a sum of 265 instead of her entitlement of 600. so there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint. Opposite parties filed version in pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version contending that the complainants are not consumers hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The grievance with respect to the pension is to be redressed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who is not party to the proceedings and hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainants had while working in the Farm retired from service on various dates as shown in the complaint. On their retiring from the service, they had been paid ex-gratia amount and other retirement benefits including the amounts due to them on the date of their retirement and accrued in their EPF account. The complainants were paid the amounts due to them under the GPF account along with interest calculated up to the previous months of the date of payment. The delay was caused on account of the fact that several employees and staff of the Farm had availed VSS at the same time and the applications submitted by them had to be duly processed which took some time. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are not in the know how as to the reason why the Regional provident Fund Commissioner is delaying effecting payment of pension. There is no negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence not covered any personal or financial loss to the complainants. So the complaint against opposite parties 1 and 2 is liable to be dismissed. Later on as per the contention put forwarded by opposite parties 1 and 2 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Assistant Provident Commissioner are impleaded as opposite parties 3 and 4. they also filed their version stating that the responsibility in settlement of EPF account in respect of the employees of the establishment including the complainants is vested with 1st opposite party. According to opposite parties 3 and 4 the statement that none of the complainants has received family pension benefits is in fructuous since the Pension payment Order have been issued to the above complainants except complainant No.7 during October and November 2003 and PPO in respect of complainant No.7 has been issued on18.2.04. The 1st opposite party is responsible to reply to the complainants regarding the EPF contribution recovered after 58 years of age. The statement of the complainant that the pensionable salary and the past service considered by4th opposite party in the PPO to all complainants except complainant No.7 is not correct and denied. The 3rd opposite party processed pension papers of all complainants on the basis of particulars received from employer of the establishment and PPO were issued by 4th opposite party as per the input data sheet received from 3rd opposite party. The complainants have not stated their pensionable salary and past service correctly even though they have denied that the pensionable salary and pensionable service shown are not correct. The opposite parties have produced the documents contains these details. So the complaint with respect to these contentions is liable to be dismissed. Regarding EPF benefit and refund of the contributions received after attaining 58 years, opposite parties 1 and 2 are responsible and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The following issues have been raised for consideration on the basis of the above pleadings. 1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer and the 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 this case consists of Ext.A1 to A15 and B1 to B21. Issue No.1 This issue was considered elaborately by the Forum and found that it is maintainable before the Forum since the complainant is a consumer as per the order in IA Issue Nos. 2 to 4 The further case of the complainants is that opposite parties 1 and 2 has to pay the balance amount accrued in their respective EPF account and to pay the EPF contributions collected from the complainants after attaining 58 years of age and the opposite parties 3 and 4 has to issue revised pension payment orders to 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th,9th complainant and issue PPO to 7th complainant. Since the complainants’ service conditions and pension able salary considered by them is not correct. In order to prove their case the complainants have produced the annual EPF statement of account for the year 1997 – 98 of 1st and that of 1998-99 of 2nd , 3rd,7th,9th complainants. The annual EPF statement of account for the year 1999-2000 of 4th, 5th, 6th complainants and annual EPF account statement of the year 31.3.92 of 8th complainant, copy of lawyer notice dt.2.8.02, 12.6.02 and 26.7.02 and the reply notices dt.28.8.02, 20.6.02 and 29.8.02. The opposite parties also produced documents in order to disprove the case i.e. Pension particulars with respect to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th complainants. Pension worksheet and computation of pension of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th , 8th and 9th complainants, PPO’s of the above complainants etc. The complainants contended that the opposite parties 1 and 2 is liable to refund the pension contribution received by them after attainment of 58 years of age and to pay the balance accrued amount in the EPF account of the complainants. But the opposite party contended that they have already paid the same to the complainants. But the complainants have not produced any documents to prove this contention. The complainants have filed application for directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 for cause production of documents. But they have field an affidavit stating that the documents were handed over to them and hence they are not in a position to produce the documents. But the complainants have not taken any further steps for production of the same. So in the absence of documents we hold the view that the complainants are not entitled to any more amount as the EPF benefits and contribution of pension collected after attaining 58 years of age. The other contention of the complainants are that the PPO issued to 1,2,4,5 and 9th complainants are not proper and PPO is not issued to 7th complainant. So in order to ascertain whether there is any irregularity in PPO the pension has to be recalculated as per the pension particulars available. According to pension particulars of the 1st complainant as per Ext.B3 and B3(a) are as stated below: Date of Birth : 16.10.1942 Date of retirement : 16.10.2000 Date of attaining 58 years : 16.10.2000 Past service : 18 Years Average Salary : ` 2214 Pensionable Service : 5 Years As per the above details the date of commencement of pension of the 1st complainant is on 16.10.2000 i.e. before 16 .11.2000. So the pension of 1st complainant can be calculated as per para12(5) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. As per this in the case of an existing member and in respect of whom the date of commencement of pension is before 16.11.2000. (1) The superannuation or early pension shall be equal to the aggregate of (a) Pension as determined under sub-para(2) for the period of service rendered from 16.11.1995 or 335 per month which is more. (b) Past service pension as provided in sub Para (3) (ii) The aggregate of (a) & (b) calculated as above shall be subject to the minimum of `500 per month, provided the eligible service is 24 years. If it is less than 24years the pension shall be proportionately lesser but subject to a minimum of `265 per month. So as per the above The monthly member Pension = Pension able Salary x Pension able Service 70 = 2214x5= 158.14 70 As per Para 12(5)(1)(a) the pension is ` 335 The past service pension as per Para 12(5)(1)(b) can be calculated according to Para 12(3)(b) Past service = 18 Years The factor as per table B since the complainant had required less than 5 years to complete 58 years age as on 16.11.1995 = 1.536 The past service pension payable on completion of 58 () years of age on 16.11.95 as per column in Para 12(3)9i)(b) () 120 of EPS 1995 since he has 18 years of past service and () salary is ` 2214 () = 120 X 1.536 = 184.32 The aggregate of (a) and (b) = 335+184.32 = 519.32 = 519 The opposite arties 3 and 4 passed PPO for the above amount from 16.10.00 and hence it is found that there is no irregularity in the PPO passed by 3rd opposite party and 4th opposite arty in respect of the 1st complainant and hence it is found that the 1st complainant is not entitled to get any more amount as pension. As per Et.B7 and B7 (a) the particulars with respect to 2nd complainant are as follows: Date of Birth : 22.06.1941 Date of retirement : 21.06.1999 Date of attaining 58 years of age : 21.06.1999 Past service : 16 years Average salary : `2000 Pensionable Service : 4 Years Eligible service : 20 years As per the above details the date of commencement of pension is 22.06.1999. i.e. before 16.11. 2000. So the pension of 2nd complainant can also be tabulated as per para 12(5) of EPS, 1995. Accordingly the monthly member pension = = 2000x 4 70 114.235 So as per Sec.12(5)(1)(a) the pension is = ` 335 The past service pension can be calculated as per Sec. 12(3)(i)(b) of EPS, 1995 Past service = 16 Years The factor as per table B since the complainant had required less than 4years to complete 58 years age as on 16.11.1995 = 1.396 The past service pension payable on completion of 58 () years of age on 16.11.95 as per column in Para 12(3)9i)(b) () 120 of EPS 1995 since he has 18 years of past service and () salary is ` 2214 () = 120 X 1.396 = 167.52 = 95x1.396 = 132.62 The aggregate of (a) and (b) = 335+167.52 = 472.52 The minimum pension is = 500 So it is seen that the complainant is entitled to get `500 as monthly pension. But the opposite parties 3 and 4 had issued PPO only for `453. But the 2nd complainant is entitled to get `500 as monthly pension from date of entitlement and the opposite parties 3 and 4 is liable to pay balance amount of pension with 12% interest from the date of entitlement till realization. As per Ext.B12 and B12(a) the particulars with respect to 4th complaint is as follows; Date of Birth : 01.02.1943 Date of retirement : 31.1.2001 Date of attaining 58 years of age : 31.1.2001 Past service : 14 years Average salary : `2094 Pensionable Service : 4 Years Eligible service : 5 years Since the commencement of pension is on 1.2.01 the pension can be tabulated as per Para 12(4) of EPS 1995. Accordingly the monthly pension is in the case of an existing member and in respect of whom the date of commencement of pension is in between 16th November 2000 and 16th November 2005. (1)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 ` 438 per month whichever is more (b) Past service pension as provided in sub-paragraph (3) The aggregate of (a) and (b) calculated as above shall be subject to a minimum of `600 per month provided the eligible service is 24 yeas. If it is less than 24 years the pension shall be proportionately less subject to the minimum of `325 per month. The early pension as per Para 12(4)(1)(a) = 2094 x 5 149.57 70 As per 12 4(ii), the minimum pension is = ` 438 Past service pension as per Para (3) ( (1)The factor as per table B since the ( 1.689 complainant have less than 6 years ( to be completed 58 years as on 16.11.95 ( Amount as per column in Para 12(30(1)(b) Since the complainant has 14years of past service With `2094 as pensionable salary = 95 = 95 X 1.689 = 160.46 The aggregate of (a) and (b) = 438 + 160.46 = 598.46 The complainant has only 19 years of service so the pension of the complainant is = 600 – (600 x 15) = 90 100 = 510 So it is seen that the complainant is entitled to get `510 as his monthly pension. But the opposite parties 3 and 4 ordered only for `475 and hence they are liable to pay balance amount of pension from date of entitlement till realization with 12% interest. As per Ext.B13 and B14 the particulars with respect to 5th complaint is as follows; Date of Birth : 15.11.1942 Date of retirement : 15.11.2000 Date of attaining 58 years of age : 15.11.2000 Past service : 16 years Average salary : `1593 Pension able Service : 5 Years Since the commencement of pension is on 16.11.2000 the pension of 5th complainant can also be tabulated as per Para 12(4) of EPS 1995. Earlier pension as per Para 12(4)(1)(a) = 1593 x 5 =113.79 70 As per 12 (4)(i)(a) the minimum pension is = ` 438 Past service pension as per Para12 (4)(i)(b) ( The factor as per table B since the ( 1.536 complainant has less than 5 years ( to be completed 58 years as on 16.11.95 ( Amount as per column in Para 12(30(1)(b) = 120 = 120 x 1.536 =184.32 The aggregate of (a) and (b) = 438 + 184.32 = 622.32 Since the complainant has only 21 years of service so the pension of the complainant is = 622.32–(622.32x9) =90 100 = 566 It is seen that the complainant is entitled to get `566 per month as monthly pension. But the opposite parties 3 and 4 ordered only for `514. So the 5th complainant is entitled to get ` 566 as monthly pension from the date of entitlement and 3rd opposite party are liable to pay the balance amount of pension with 12% interest. The complainant No.7 contended that he has not received family pension. But the opposite parties 3 and 4 stated in their version that they have issued PPO on 18.2.04. This was not disputed by the complainant. Moreover no particulars with respect to complainant NO.7 is not produced and hence we are not in a position to recalculate the pension and hence we hold that he is not entitled to get any more amount towards his pension. As per Ext.B19, B20 and B21 the particulars with respect to complainant NO.9 is as shown below. Date of Birth : 30.09.1942 Date of retirement : 29.09.2000 Date of attaining 58 years of age : 29.09.2000 Past service : 5 years Average salary : `1985 Pension able Service : 5 Years Even though the complainant contended that she has past service of 13 years. No document is before us except B19,B20 and B21. Since the commencement of pension of 9th complainant is on 30.9.2000 the pension can be tabulated as per Para 12(5) of EPS 1995. Accordingly the early member pension = 1985 x 5 =141.78 70 So as per 12 (5)(i)(a) the minimum early pension is = ` 335 Past service pension as per Para12 (5)(i)(b) ( The factor as per table B since the ( 1.536 Complainant has less than 5 years ( to be completed 58 years as on 16.11.95 ( Amount as per column in Para 12(3)(1)(b) Since the complainant has less than 11 years 80 Past service and revised salary is 1985. = 80 x 1.536 =122.80 The aggregate of (a) and (b) = 335 + 122.80 = 457.80 The minimum pension as per 12(5)(ii) =500 The eligible service of 9th complainant is only 10 years So as per Para 12(5)(ii) =500-(500x42) = 290 100 = 290 So it is seen that the 9th complainant is entitled to get `290 as monthly pension from the date of entitlement. But the opposite parties 3 and 4 issued PPO only for `265. So the complainant No.9 is entitled to get the balance amount of pension from the date of entitlement till realization with 12% interest. So from the above discussion it is seen that the Pension Payment order issued in favour of complainants 2, 4,5 and 9 are defective since it is found that complainant No.2 is entitled to get 500 instead of 453, complainant No.4 is entitled to get 510 instead of 475, complainant No.5 entitled to get 566 instead of 519 and complainant No.9 is entitled to get 290 instead of 265. So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 3 and 4 in calculating the pension of complainant Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 9. So they are liable to issue revised PPO to the complainants 2, 4, 5, and 9. It is found that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence they are exonerated from liabilities. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties are also liable to pay ` 1000 as compensation and ` 1000 as cost of this proceedings to each complainants 2, 4, 5 and 9 and order passed accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the 3rd and 4th opposite parties to pass revised pension payment order with respect to complainants No. 2,4,5 and 9 to the effect that complainant No.2 is entitled to get ` 500 (Rupees Five hundred only) and Complainant NO.4 is entitled to get ` 510 (Rupees Five hundred and Ten only) , Complainant No.5 is entitled to get ` 566 (Rupees Five hundred and sixty six only) and complainant No.9 is entitle to get `290 as their monthly pension with balance amount to the complainants from their respective date of entitlement with 12% interest per annum from the date of entitlement till realization with ` 1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and ` 1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to complainant Nos. 2,4,5 and 9 within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant numbers 2,4,5 and 9 are entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1.to A9. Copy of Annual EPF Account of complainant Nos. 1 to 9 issued by OP A10.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A11.Reply from 2nd OP A12.Copy of lawyer notice sent on behalf of 9th complainant A13.Copy of reply sent by OP A14.Copy of lawyer notice sent on behalf of 3rd complainant. A15.Copy of the reply sent by 2nd OP Exhibits for the opposite party B1 to B4. Copy of IDS, pension worksheet and pension payment order of 1st complainant issued by OP A5 to A7.Copy of IDS in favour of 2nd complainant and pension worksheet A8 & 9. Copy of IDS in favour of 3rd complainant (Details of pension salary and past service) A10 to A12. Copy of IDS in favour of 4th complainant A13 & 14. Copy of IDS in favour of 5th complainant A15 & 16. Copy of IDS in favour of 6th complainant B17 & 18. Copy of IDS in favour of 8th complainant B19 to 21. Copy of IDS in favour of 9th complainant and pension worksheet. Witness examined for either side: Nil /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
