Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant has filed this complaint through Akhila Bharathiya Grahaka Panchayat, Mysore under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> 2. The grievances of the complainant are that he retired as a Sub-inspector of Railway Protection Force, South-West Railway. That the Opposite parties have stepped up his pension as per the 5th pay recommendations only for the period of 14 years from Rs.1,849/- to Rs.2,311/- on 21.03.2000 and 14.09.2000 respectively with the shabby maintenance of service records. That he had entered service in a Central Excise Department on 05.11.1951 and served in that department from 17.11.1951 to 05.12.1955. But, it was declared surplus due to abolition of Territorial Border Area, offering alternative jobs in the Railways vide circular dated 11.04.1995 and 11/03/111/55. But, the Opposite parties while fixing pension have not taken into consideration of the period of service he rendered in the Central Excise Department. That Railway Pensioners Association had addressed several letters to the Opposite parties, but nothing came out. The Opposite parties have therefore caused deficiency in their service since nearly 20 years. Cause of action according to him occurred in Hubli during the year 1986 when he retired from service on superannuation and thus he has prayed for the quashing the letter dated 22.03.2006 and direct the Opposite parties to include 4 years 18 days service rendered by him in the Central Excise Department for calculation of the pensionary benefits and also to award a sum of Rs.1,000/- p.y. for a period of 21 years and also to award cost of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> 3. The Opposite parties are duly served with the notice, but Opposite parties 2nd and 3rd have remained absent, are placed exparte. The 1st Opposite party has filed it’s version to this complaint contending that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as per the admission made by the complainant in para-2 of this complaint. The cause of action arose at Hubli, offices of the Opposite parties are situated at Hubli, and therefore the complaint in this Forum is not maintainable. The complainant admittedly retired in the year 1986 has come up with this complaint after 21 years of service and it is barred by limitation. It is further contended that on perusal of entire service records of the complainant include service register, there is no authenticated support in support of the complainant’s claim about his service 4 years 18 days in the Central Excise Department. Therefore, denying the complainant’s past service in Central Excise Department have further contended that Pension Rules regarding counting for previous service for pensionary benefits is applicable to only those railways servants, who joined the railway department on or after 01.04.1957. Therefore, the complainant who joined service on 06.12.1955 is not entitled for counting the previous service and therefore has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 4. In the course of enquiry, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence. On behalf of the 1st Opposite party, the Divisional Security Commissioner, R.P.F. has filed his affidavit evidence. The complainant has produced certain correspondence letters. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 5. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint?<br /> 2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant proves that he had, prior to joining service of the Opposite parties had served in Central Excise Department for a period of 4 years 18 days and it is liable to be considered for pensionary benefits? <br /> 4. Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for?<br /> 5. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.3 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.4 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.5 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Points no. 1 & 2:- The complainant in para – 2 of his complaint, itself has stated as under:- “ The cause of action had occurred in Hubli during the year 1986 when the complainant had retired from service after superannuation as the Opposite parties had not properly maintained his service register, causing less fixation on pension”. The Opposite party taking advantage of this admission of the complainant and also based on other documents and admission of the complainant of his retirement during 1986 has contended that according to the complainant himself, the cause of action arose at Hubli where he was serving and retired, therefore stated that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as all the Opposite parties are residents of Hubli. The 1st Opposite party has also contended that the complainant admittedly retired in the year 1986, all the pensionary benefits were settled during that period, but the complainant has approached this Forum after long period of 21 years and therefore stated that the complaint is barred by limitation.<br /> 8. The complainant in the complaint has referred to certain corresponding letters addressed to the Opposite parties for set-righting his grievances. Though he has referred to two letters of 03.03.2006 and 05.08.2006, but the complainant has not relied upon on those letters for giving him cause of action to come up with this complaint. The Opposite parties as could be found from the version of the 1st Opposite party and the affidavit, stated to have considered all the service records and entries in the service register and fixed the pensionary benefits and that was not questioned at all by the Opposite party. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st Opposite party invited our attention to the contents of para – 5 of the complaint and argued that the complainant after 1986 after his pensionary benefits was fixed and settled did not raised any objection, but started airing his grievance only when his pension was fixed after 5th pay commission recommendations were made some where in the year 2000. It also appears from the allegations of the complaint according to the complainant, the Opposite party has not fixed his pension as per the 5th pay commission recommendations by taking into consideration, the past service he rendered in the Central Excise Department. Therefore, it appears that the complainant did not agitate this issue as soon as his pensionary benefits were fixed when he retired in the year 1986. The complaint though contain several or allegations, but relevant facts are not placed before this Forum with the supporting materials. Therefore, it is manifest that the Opposite parties against whom the complaint is presented before this Forum are all the residents of Hubli in whose office, the complainant was working and retired. Therefore, the Forum with which the complainant could haven presented a complaint is at Hubli and not before this Forum. Section 11 sub section 2 of the C.P.Act contemplates the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the complainant has to be filed with includes the place where the Opposite parties are residing or business is carried on or in a place where they have the branch office. In the instant case, though the Railway department has a branch office at Mysore, but the complainant has not made that branch office as a party in this complaint. Most probably the complainant knowing that all grievances are against the Opposite parties at Hubli did not find it as necessity to implead the Mysore branch office of the Railways. Therefore, we hold that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 9. As we have already narrated above, and even as admitted by the complainant, the cause of action arose to this complaint in the year 1986 and the complainant having had kept quite for all these years woke up to realize that as if his pensionary benefits was not fixed during the year 2006 when the 5th pay commission recommendations were implemented. Therefore, the complaint now filed after lapse of 21 years, in our view is barred by limitation and therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 10. Points 3 and 4:- As coming to the claim of the complainant that he prior to the jointing service of the Opposite parties had worked for a period of 4 years 18 days in the Central Excide Department has been seriously opposed by the 1st Opposite party not only in it’s version, but also in it’s affidavit. Therefore, the burden is on the complainant to prove his past service and also the omission of the Opposite parties in not considering that past service for fixation of pensionary benefits. The complainant admittedly has not discharged the burden casted on him on point no.3 by either placing any oral or documentary evidence to prove his past service and any law or Rules, which governs his case for counting his past service for the purpose of fixation of his pensionary benefits. It is surprising to know that the complainant has not even sworn to these facts in the affidavit evidence filed by him. The affidavit evidence filed by the complainant is his bereft of facts. The complainant though stated to several facts running to nearly 10 pages in the complaint, but in the affidavit evidence filed by him has sworn to some materials which do not through any light either on the past services he rendered or any facts pointing finger to the deficiency of the Opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant in our view has absolutely not even sworn to the facts of his alleged past service, improper fixation of his pensionary benefits or the alleged deficiency in the service of the Opposite parties. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that he rendered 4 years 18 days of service in the Central Excise Department cannot be accepted. The 1st Opposite party further in his affidavit evidence has contended that they verified the service register of this complainant so far as his claim of previous service, but no reference was found in it and they have also further contended that past service of an employee could be taken into consideration for fixing pensionary benefits of those who joined the service after 01.04.1957 and not the employees who joined prior to that date. The complainant admittedly had joined service with the Opposite parties on 06.12.1955, as such the complainant cannot be held to have become entitled for counting his past service for fixing the pensionary benefits. Even otherwise the complainant in our view has not placed any materials to concur with this allegations and to hold that the Opposite parties have caused deficiency in service. As the result, the complaint in our view is not entitled for any relief. With the result, we answer points 1 to 4 accordingly and pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />