Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed 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 of the complainant(now respondent No.1) and directed OP Nos.1 & 2(now appellants) as under; “In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed. However, compensation and cost of litigation shall be paid only by OPs No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. We pass the following order:- (i) OPs No.1 and 2 shall forward the pension papers of the complainant (complete in all respects) to OPs No.3 and 4 within one month and the latter will release the pension along with the entire arrears of pension to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of papers from OPs No.1 and 2; (ii) OPs No.1 and 2 shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) OPs No.1 and 2 shall also pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with by OP Nos.1 and 2 as well as OP Nos.3 and 4 jointly and severally within a total period of two months from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing OP Nos.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.09.09.2010 till the date of actual payment besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation as also complying with the order as at Para 10(i) of the foregoing. It is also made clear in respect of OP Nos.3 and 4 that as and when, they receive the pension case of the complainant, they will finalize the same and release the pension including arrears to the complainant in full within next 30 days from the date of submission of the pension papers by OPs No.1 and 2 to them.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that Sh.Mohinder Pal, complainant was posted as Assistant Grade(I) in the office of the General Manager, Food Corporation of India (hereinafter to be called as FCI only) at the time of superannuation on 30.6.2006. He was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme having CPF No.23088 and F.P.S. Account No.19742. He was contributing to the said scheme. Accordingly, he was entitled to pension under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, from 11.5.2004, on attaining the age of 58 years. It was stated that the pension papers of the complainant were got completed by the office in January 2007. The aforesaid papers of the complainant were forwarded by OP No.1 (now appellant No.1), employer of the complainant, to the Deputy General Manager (CPF), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (North), Noida in the month of March 2007. The said papers were resubmitted after removal of objections by OP No.1 vide letter dated 17.4.2007. It was further stated that OP No.2(now appellant No.2) was required to forward the pension case of the complainant to OP No.3 i.e. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. It was further stated that, though a period of more than three years had passed, yet nothing was heard, from the OPs. Ultimately, the complainant served legal notices, on the OPs. Despite issuance of the legal notices, the pension of the complainant, was not released, nor any reason was assigned, for withholding the same. 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, in their reply, stated that there was no delay, on their part. It was further stated that if there was any delay, it was only on account of procedural formalities. It was further stated that OP Nos.1&2 were not liable to pay interest to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant applied for pension in August,2006. It was further stated that OP No.1 after completing the formalities sent the papers to OP No.2 vide letter dated 17/18.8.2006, which were returned by the said office for want of Social Security Number. It was further stated that the papers were again submitted by OP No.1, after completing all the formalities, to OP No.2, vide letter dated 16.3.2007. The papers were again received back by OP No.1 with some objections. The same were again submitted to OP No.2 vide letter dated 27.4.2007. The papers were again statedly returned by OP No.2, vide letter dated 20.10.2007, for want of Pension Form, for allotting Social Security Number. However, OP No.1 never received back these papers . It was further stated that copies of all the letters/correspondence were supplied to the complainant, but he did not approach the OPs, for release of his pension. It was further stated that he kept mum for a period of about 3 years, for the reasons, best known to him. It was further stated that the complainant was requested vide letter dated 21/22.10.2010 to visit the office of OP No.1. The complainant visited the office of OP No.1 on 9.11.2010, and submitted the requisite documents vide letter of the even date. He signed the pension papers, which were immediately sent by OP No.1 to OP No.2 vide letter dated 12.11.2010. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs. 4. OP No.3, in his reply, stated that till that date he had not received the pension papers of the complainant and, as such, no liability could be fastened upon him. It was further stated that OP No.3 was ready and willing to perform his part of the duties, regarding the release of pension within the stipulated period, as per the procedure, laid down in the Act, as and when, the pension papers were received by him. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. 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 instant appeal was filed, by the appellants/ OP Nos.1 & 2. 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, submitted that, no doubt, the complainant superannuated with effect from 30.6.2006 vide order annexure A. He further submitted that there was only procedural delay, in the matter, as the complainant failed to complete the formalities. He further submitted that since the requisite formalities had not been completed by the complainant, pension papers were returned by OP No.2 to OP No.1 again and again. He further submitted that after removing the objections, the same were again resubmitted to OP No.2. He further submitted that there was no intentional and deliberate delay, on the part of the appellants/OPs, in dealing with the pension case of the complainant. He further submitted that though, the complainant was entitled to pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 from 11.6.2004, on attaining the age of 58 years, yet he submitted the requisite pension papers, in the month of March,2007 and, thus, there was considerable delay on his part, for which, the OPs could not be blamed. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that OP Nos.1 & 2 were deficient, in rendering service. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, submitted that, even after a period of 3 ½ years, pension papers which had already been submitted by the complainant, were not sent to OP No.3, for the purpose of release of pension. He further submitted that there was intentional and deliberate delay, on the part of OP Nos.1 & 2, as a result whereof, a lot of harassment and mental agony was caused to the complainant. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum that the complainant, being an employee of OP No.1, was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme having CPF No.23088 and FPS Account No.19742. Undisputedly, he was contributing to the said scheme. As such, he was entitled to pension under the Employees Pension Scheme,1995, with effect from 11.6.2004, on attaining the age of 58 years. There is hardly any dispute, with regard to the factum, that the complainant superannuated on 30.6.2006, vide order annexure A. It was admitted by OP No.1, in his written reply, that the pension papers, complete in all respects, were submitted by August,2006. It is evident from the letter annexure-1 that the pension papers of the complainant were sent by OP No.1 to OP no.2 on 17.8.2006. It is evident from annexure B that the pension papers were returned by OP No.2 to OP No.1 on 16.3.2007. It is further evident that the pension papers were again resubmitted by OP No.1 to OP No.2 vide letter Annexure B dated 27.4.2007. It means that OP No.2, returned the papers, after a period of almost 7 months. There is nothing, on the record, to show, as to why, the pension papers of the complainant were kept by OP No.2, for such a long period of 7 months. In case, the same were incomplete, OP No.2 was required to return pension papers, immediately, after receipt of the same from OP NO.1. When pension papers were again resubmitted on 27.4.2007, after completing the necessary formalities, by OP No.1 to OP No.2, the same were again returned on 20.10.2007 i.e. after a period of six months. OP No.2, therefore, kept the papers again for a period of 6 months, without any rhyme or reason. If any document was required by OP No.2 or OP No.1, a letter could be written to the complainant to submit the same immediately, after receipt of the papers by OP NO.2, from OP No.1. No document, or a piece of evidence, was produced by the OPs, that any letter was written to the complainant, for submitting the requisite documents, or completing the formalities, or removal of objections. OP Nos.1 & 2, continued corresponding inter-se, at the back of the complainant, with the sole intention to harass him. It was the duty of OP Nos.1 & 2, to send pension papers of the complainant to OP No.3, immediately, after the submission of the same by him (complainant), to them. Even after the expiry of period of more than 3 ½ years, the pension papers of the complainant were not sent by OP Nos.1 & 2 to OP No.3, so as to enable him, to send the same, to OP No.4 for the purpose of release of pension payment order. If there was any delay, on the part of the complainant, in not submitting the papers, before attaining the age of 58 years, then he may be blamed for the same. However, herein, the question is of deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of OP Nos.1 & 2, and not of the complainant. Since, OP Nos.1 &2, did not submit pension papers of the complainant, to OP No.3, for a period of more than 3½ years, without taking into consideration the factum that he (complainant) had already retired, and the pension may be his only source of income, for his survival, they were certainly negligent. Such an apathetic and indifferent attitude of the officials/officers of the FCI, resulted into an immense physical harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Even, financial loss was caused to the complainant, on account of the aforesaid acts of OP Nos.1 & 2. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the complainant was unnecessarily dragged into litigation and he was not paid pension, which was due to him, as a matter of right, within a reasonable period, from the date of submission of pension papers. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that there was gross deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of OP Nos.1 & 2. The order of the District Forum is, thus, correct and is liable to be upheld. 12. The order rendered by the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/-. The impugned order is upheld. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
