Karnataka

StateCommission

A/2165/2022

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner Pension - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Arjun - Opp.Party(s)

Shwetha Anand

25 Sep 2023

ORDER

  Date of Filing : 31.10.2022

                                                              Date of Disposal : 25.09.2023

 

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

 

DATED:25.09.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH: PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL No.2165/2022

 

                                      

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension)
Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan

New Block No.10,

Behind Income Tax Office,

Navanagar, Hubli – 580 025.                                                  Appellant

(By Mrs Shweta Anand, Advocate)

 

-Versus –

 

Mr Arjun

S/o Mr Kariyappa Jadhav

Aged around 62 years

Residing at Slpekar Oni

Mruthyunjayanagar

Dharwad - 580 006                                                               Respondent

 

: ORDER :

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

01.     This Appeal is filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by the OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 23.12.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint No.107/2020 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharwad (for short, the District Commission).

 

02.     Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the both parties on record.

03.     The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and directed OP to revise the Monthly Pension of the Complainant as claimed in his Complaint  i.e., to Rs.1,099/- from the date of his Retirement and pay the arrears/difference of pension with interest at 10% p.a as and when arrears has become due.   Further directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards Cost & Compensation to the Complainant, etc.,

04.     Being aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal inter-alia contending amongst other grounds that the District Commission completely ignored the fact that the Complainant had opted for Reduced Pension and early pension had commenced from 02.04.2004 and hence, the pension of the Complainant is fixed as per Para 12 (4).   The benefit of two years weightage is applicable to the Complainant and even after considering the weightage, the Pension of the Complainant would remain un-changed. The Complainant had opted for superannuation pension and was commenced from 01.03.2004, the age of the complainant as on 16.11.1995 was 49 years and hence, the pension is fixed as per Para 12 (4) and the minimum as pension is Rs.600/- and Rs.881/- was allowed.  Thus seeks to set aside the impugned order by allowing the Appeal.

05.     On perusal of the documents on record, it is observed that it is not in dispute that the Complainant was a Member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme; he contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 and subsequently, continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  Further Complainant was the employee of M/s Mysore Kirloskar Pvt. Ltd., Sattur, Dharwad District from 1971 and retired from service on 28.02.2004 on attaining the age of Superannuation by rendering past service of 24 years and 8 years of actual service hence, as per proviso in Para 12 of EPS 1995,  he is eligible for weightage of two years and entitled for monthly pension as it stood before 15.06.2007 as he had retired before the amendment of 15.06.2007. Fact remains that since the Complainant has not been superannuated, the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own Rules & Regulations and should have subjected the Member to his entitlement for Reduced monthly Pension at reduction rate of 3% for every year of short fall in his service, as the age of the Member qualifying for benefits under the PF scheme, fell short of 58 years, as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995

06.     Thus the act of the Appellant in not fixing the entitled Monthly Pension of the Complainant properly and in time definitely amounts to deficiency in service.  Under the circumstances, the Impugned Order passed by the District Forum is just and proper.  However, we are of the considered opinion that awarding of interest @ 10% p.a is slightly on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part and consequently, the Impugned Order dated 23.12.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint No.107/2020 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharwad is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned.  The Cost & Compensation of Rs.4,000/- awarded  by the District Forum shall remain un-disturbed and the Appellant is directed to comply with this Order within 60 days from the date of this Order, if not already complied with.

 

07.     Further, on perusal of the Order Sheet, it is observed that the Office has pointed out that there is a delay of 277 days in preferring the Appeal.   Considering the reasons assigned in the Affidavit filed in support of it, the delay in filing the Appeal is hereby condoned.

08.     The statutory deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

 

 

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

 

 

                                                                                  President

*s