Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals bearing No.179 of 2011 titled as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & another Vs Sh.Satya Pal Mohal & Ors and No.221 of 2011 titled as General Manager, Food Corporation of India & another Vs Sh.Satya Pal Mohal & Ors, against the order dated 3.6.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint, in the following manner; “In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, which he suffered due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In addition to this, the OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the OPs shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.1.9.2010 till the date of actual payment, besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was posted as Depot Manager in the office of the General Manager, Food Corporation of India (hereinafter to be called as FCI) at the time of superannuation, on 30.4.2009. He was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme having CPF No.10564 and F.P.S. Account No.15055. He was contributing to the said scheme. Accordingly, he was entitled to pension under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, with effect from 1.5.2007, on attaining the age of 58 years. It was stated that the complainant submitted the requisite papers, complete in all respects, for the grant of pension, under the said scheme. These papers were forwarded by the Regional Office, FCI, Punjab, Chandigarh, to the Deputy General Manager (CPF), FCI Zonal Office (North), Noida, vide letter dated 11.9.2007. It was further stated that since then, the complainant had not received any response from any of the OPs. It was further stated that the complainant had not been granted pension. Due to the non-payment of pension, the complainant was facing financial difficulty, mental agony and harassment. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. OP Nos.1& 2, General Manager, FCI, Chandigarh, and Zonal Manager(North) FCI, Noida, in their joint reply, stated that there was no intentional delay on their part. It was further stated that the delay, if any, was on account of procedural formalities. It was further stated that they were not liable to pay any interest to the complainant. It was further stated that the pension papers of the complainant were sent to the Deputy General Manager (CPF), FCI Zonal Office (North), Noida vide letter dated 11.9.2007, which were returned for want of Social Security Number. After completing all the formalities, the pension papers were again resubmitted to OP No.2, who forwarded the same to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida OP No.3, vide letter 7/16.7.2008 annexure D, which were returned to OP No.2 vide letter dated 10.9.2009. The said papers were again submitted to OP No.3 vide letter dated 27.10.2009, who again returned the same vide letter dated 31.3.2010 for completing certain formalities. Ultimately, the pension papers were resubmitted by OP No.2 to OP No.3 vide letter dated 4.10.2010. It was further stated that the main reason for delay, in submitting the pension papers, was the refusal of OP No.3 to accept the said papers, on 10.9.2009 and 31.3.2010. It was denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. OP No.3 , in his written reply, stated that, for the first time, the pension papers of the complainant were received on 16.07.2008, which were not complete in all respects. The same were returned to OP No.2 on 10.9.2009 with the request to supply the details of pension fund, as it was mandatory under the provisions of the EPF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952. The claim was again submitted to OP No.3 on 27.10.2009 with contribution details. It was further submitted that again the claim was sent incomplete and OP No.3 returned the same to OP No.2 on 30.3.2010, with the request, either to submit the same alongwith complete contribution details or intimate break in service, if any. It was further stated that the pension papers submitted by OP No.2, were in such an haphazard and unarranged manner that it took more than the normal time, in examining and handing over the same. It was denied that OP No.3 was deficient, in rendering service. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 5. OP NO.4 did not file any reply. 6. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid two appeals were filed by the appellants/OPs. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants/OP Nos.1 & 2 in appeal No.221 of 2011, submitted that the complainant himself was at fault, in submitting the pension papers, which were not complete in all respects, very late. He further submitted that since the complainant himself, delayed the submission of papers, the appellants could not be blamed for any delay, which occurred on account of completion of official formalities. He further submitted that the appellants dealt with the pension case of the complainant, as soon as, the same was received in their office and the District Forum was wrong, in fastening the liability upon them. 10. The Counsel for the appellants, in appeal No.179 of 2011 submitted that as soon as, the papers complete in all respects, were received by the appellants, they took no time, in settling the claim. She further submitted that the appellants were wrongly held liable. 11. The Counsel for the complainant/respondent, submitted that there was gross deficiency, in service, on the part of the appellants, as a result whereof, inordinate delay was caused in settling the claim of the complainant. 12. It is evident from annexure A, that the complainant retired on 30.4.2009, on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Annexure B is a copy of the letter dated 11.9.2007, vide which the Deputy General Manager(Regional Office), FCI, Chandigarh sent the family pension case of the complainant, complete in all respects, to the Deputy General Manager(CPF), FCI, Zonal Office(North) Noida, UP, for onward transmission of the same to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida OP No.3. Since, the pension papers, complete in all respects, were submitted to the Regional Office at Chandigarh, by the complainant, who forwarded the same to Zonal Office of FCI at Noida, the said office was required to deal with the same immediately. On the other hand, it is evident that they submitted/resubmitted the said pension papers to OP No.3, on 16.7.2008 i.e. after a period of 10 months. OP Nos.1 & 2, thus, sat over the matter, without considering the plight of the complainant, an ex-employee of the FCI. Why they sat over the pension papers for 10 months before submitting the same to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, is not satisfactorily explained. No doubt, a plea was taken by the appellants, that the pension papers were refused to be received by OP No.3 . No document, showing that OP No.3 refused to accept the papers, was placed on record. On the other hand, OP NO.3 categorically stated that the claim was not complete, as the same was without the details of pension fund, and complete contribution details. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that OP Nos.1 & 2, were definitely deficient, in rendering service by delaying the submission of pension papers to OP Nos.3 & 4 for a period of 10 months. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in appeal No.221 of 2011, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 13. Now coming to the liability of the appellants/OP Nos.3 & 4 in appeal No.179 of 2011, it may be stated here, that it was admitted by OP No. 3 that the papers were received by him on 16.7.2008, for the first time. The case of OP No.3 was to the effect that since the papers were not complete, in all respects, the same were returned to OP No.2 on 10.9.2009. In case, the papers were not complete, in all respects, then why the officials of OP Nos.3 & 4 sat over the same from 16.7.2008 to 10.9.2009 for a period of 14 months, and from 27.10.2009 to 30.3.2010, is not explained. Once the papers were received by OP NOs.3 & 4 on 16.7.2008, they should not have taken the period of 14 months to examine the same, that the same were incomplete. Again, when the pension papers were resubmitted on 27.10.2009, the same were returned with the direction to supply contribution details on 30.3.2010. OP No.3 should have returned the papers immediately when the same were incomplete, but he again took 5 months, to examine that the contribution details were not sent. There was, therefore, deficiency, in rendering service on the part of OP Nos.3 & 4 as they caused delay, aforesaid, in settling the pension of the complainant. 14. As stated above, the complainant had already retired. The pension may be the only source of his livelihood. The complainant was an officer of the FCI. The officers/officials of OP Nos.1 & 2 did not take into consideration the plight of a retired employee. Their attitude was callous and indifferent towards the settlement of claim of pension of a retired employee of the FCI. A lot of harassment and mental agony, occasioned to the complainant, on account of the aforesaid acts of all the OPs. Not only this, the complainant also suffered financial loss as had the pension been released, in his favour, in time, he would have deposited the same, in the bank, and earned interest thereon, or utilized the same for meeting the necessary expenses. No doubt, now after about four years, the pension case of the complainant has been settled. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that since the harassment and mental agony were caused to the complainant, at the hands of the OPs, he was liable to be compensated, though his pension claim stood settled , after the filing of complaint. 15. It is settled principle of law, that compensation should be just, fair and reasonable. In the instant case, in our considered opinion, the amount of Rs.50,000/- granted as compensation, for physical harassment and mental agony to the complainant, by the District Forum, cannot be said to be unreasonable, unfair and unjust. Compensation granted in this case is commensurate with the physical harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant, at the hands of the OPs. 16. The order rendered by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 17. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals bearing No.179 of 2011 and 221 of 2011 being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same are dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/- in each appeal. The impugned order of the District Forum is upheld. 18. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 19. The file be consigned to Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
