Karnataka

StateCommission

A/457/2023

The Assistant Provident Fund, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Mohammad Hanif - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

05 Jan 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing:14.03.2023

                 Date of Disposal:05.01.2024

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:05.01.2024

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH:PRESIDENT

 

Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR:JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.457/2023

 

The Asst Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Regional Office                                    

New Block No.10

Behind Income Tax Office

Navanagar

Hubli-580 025                                                              Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

 

-Versus-

 

1. Mr Mohammad Hanif

    S/o Jalasab Koloor

    Aged 69 years

    R/o H No.3/31/b/11

    M D Colony

    Yellapur Oni

    Dharwad – 580020.

    (By Mr. Sharan B Tadahal, Advocate for R1)

 

2. The Area Manager

    Food Corporation of India

    Lamington Road

    Hubli                                                               

    (By Mr N Dinesh Rao, Advocate for R2)                           Respondents

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by the OP1, aggrieved by the Order dated 26.09.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.84/2020 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission).

2.       Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels on record.

3.       Perused the Impugned Order, Grounds of Appeal and documents.

4.       The District Commission after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part in the following terms:

         In place of Revised Pension fixed by OP1 at Rs.1,203 /- p.m, we determine and fix the same at Rs.1,354/- p.m to be payable from 08.03.2006.

          Further, the Complainant is entitled for arrears of Rs.59,536/- from 08.03.2006 till the date of judgment i.e.,26.09.2022.  Further, OP1 shall go on paying the same Pension in future from 27.09.2022 and OP1 is directed to pay the same, within one month from the Date of the judgement.  In case of failure of OP1 to comply with the said Order, then they shall pay interest @ 10% p.a on Rs.59,536/- from 26.09.2022, till realisation.

          Further, OP1 shall pay Compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the in-convenience and mental agony caused and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the Complainant, within one month from the Date of the judgement.  In default, the same shall carry interest at 10% p.atill realisation.

5.       Aggrieved by the Order, OP1 is in Appeal, contending that after receiving clarification from Head Office, the Pension of the Respondent No.1 was revised by granting weightage of two years and original pension was fixed at Rs.1,510/- and after reducing the amount for early pension and ROC amount of Rs.1,203/- was being paid.   Further, arrears of pension Rs.19,664/- was transferred to Respondent No.1’s Bank Account in May 2017.  Further Appellant contended that the District Commission without taking the contention of the Appellant into consideration has allowed the complaint and made calculation on its own, which are against the provision of the scheme and directed the Appellant to revise the monthly pension, arrears, interest and costs.  Further contended that District Commission erroneously calculated early pension reduced at the rate of 3% for three years, instead of Four years as per Para (7) of EPS 1995 and directed the Appellant to pay difference amount of Rs.151/- p.m payable to Respondent No.1 from 08.03.2006.  Thus, the Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.

6.       The allegation of the Complainant is that, OP1 fixed his entitled Monthly Pension at Rs.1,056/- p.m on 05.12.2004 as per PPO No.KN:HBL:35424 and recently, he came to know that there are errors in calculation and fixation of the Pension.  Therefore, he gave representation to the OP1 on 04.03.2011 to rectify the mistake, but, OP1 denied for revision of Monthly Pension.  Further he alleged that OP1 failed to follow the provisions of 12(4) (a) (b) and 10 (2) of EPS 1995, Hence, he instituted the present Complaint before the District Commission, seeking direction to the OP1 to revise his entitled Monthly Pension, by adding two years of weightage and arrears of Rs.2,42,602/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a to the Complainant.

7.       OP1 in his Version contended that the claim of the Complainant was duly processed in accordance with provisions of EPS 1995 and pension is paid regularly.   The Complainant has submitted memo of calculation with the complaint and he has totally ignored that he had opted for Reduced Pension and return of capital accordingly, necessary deduction is not applied to original pension. Therefore, the pension fixed by OP1 is correct and is in order.

8.       Admittedly, Complainant was an employee of OP2/Food Corporation of India, Hubli; he joined the service on 01.06.1976; he was the member of Family Pension Scheme; he contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971; subsequently, he continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995; he retired from the service on 05.12.2004 by rendering past service of 19 years and actual service of 9 years, in total 28 years of service. Hence, he is entitled for weightage of two years and his monthly pension will have to be calculated as per Para 12 of EPS, as it stood before 15.06.2007.

9.       Perused the Memo of Calculations submitted by the Appellant along with the Memorandum of Appeal, as also Memo of Calculation submitted by the Complainant before the District Commission and observation made by the District Commission in the Impugned Order, it is seen that there is no difference in calculation of Revised Pension after granting weightage of two years and calculation made in respect of actual service. District Commission has rightly calculated the Past service benefits to the Complainant. However, an error observed in PPO calculation in respect of benefit to be extended in respect of past service, as per Para 12 of EPS 1995 as it stood before 15.06.2007 by the Appellant.  In this regard, it is relevant to make mention of the fact that this Commission in Appeal No.1271 to 1295/2016 decided on 15.12.2016, given a clear direction to the Appellant to calculate the past service benefit as per Para 12 of EPS 1995 as it stood before 15.06.2007, if the Complainant retired before 15.06.2007, inspite of this, the Appellant re-calculated the Pension of the Complainant in amended provision, instead of un-amended provision,

10.     To sum up, there is no ambiguity for us to declare that the calculation brought out in the PPO with specific reference to the calculation of past service benefit is erroneous.  Further, there are errors in calculation made in respect of reduced Pension payable at the rate of 3% for every year of short fall of attaining the age of Superannuation, as per Para (7) of EPS 1995 by the District Commission.   In the circumstances, the Impugned Order requires to be interfered with by modifying the same in the following terms.

          Appeal is partly allowed.  Consequently, Impugned Order dated 26.09.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.84/2020 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharwad is hereby modified by  directing the Appellant to re-calculate the entitled Monthly Pension of the Complainant as per Para 12 (3)(a) and (b) of EPS 1995 of un-amended provision; reduced pension as per Para 12(7) of EPS 1995; ROC as per Para 13 of EPS 1995 and also release the Annual Relief benefit as and when granted by the Central Government, with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 3 months from the Date of this Order.

The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for the needful.

 

 

Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

Lady Member                      Judicial Member                       President

*s