Order no.   8   dt. 04.10.2007

          The petitioner Devdas Sen ex-employee of o.p. Stewarts and Lloyds of India Ltd. has claimed in this consumer complaint his due payable by o,.p. along with other reliefs.

          Profile of the petitioner’s case is that he retired from the post of Senior Labour Welfare Officer of o.p. no.1 from February 1986.

          His quarterly pension was Rs.1,057.50 with effect from 13.2.86 and commuted value of pension was Rs.18,441.90.

The o.p. has deducted Rs.300/- p.a. from salary of petitioner from May ’84 and petitioner deposited Rs.5100/- towards rent liability from December ’82 – April ’84 with the o.p. in pursuance of correspondences from petitioner to o.p. dt.4.5.84 with a direction to keep the amount in separate account.

The petitioner permitted vide letter dt.12.2.86  the trustees Stewarts and Lloyds of India Ltd. and Associated Companies Staff Pension and Life Assurance Scheme to retain commuted value of Rs.18,000/- of pension as well as quarterly pension Rs.900/- to meet any financial liability of the company that may be imposed on the company by the Court.

The petitioner also authorized the o.p. to invest Rs.18,000/- in Stewarts and Lloyds of India Ltd. Fixed Deposit Scheme carrying interest @ 15% p.a. and to pass on interest to the petitioner half yearly. The deducted amount Rs.900/- from quarterly pension will be transferred to the company for credit to a Suspense Account.

The o.p. had dealt with the sum accordingly.

          Mrs. Rafique Khan land lady filed a suit being Y.S. No.587/83 against o.p. and petitioner for recovery of posses of the flat occupied by petitioner and other relief.

The o.p. had decided vide his correspondences dt.31.8.94, annex-F, not to release any amount to the petitioner until petitioner make effective arrangement for withdrawal of suit. The o.p. also reiterate said stand in their correspondences dt.27.5.05.

          Hence, the petitioner has moved this forum for above relief.

The o.p. has contended in their w/v that the petitioner is an ex-employee. His claim, relates to pension and pensionery benefit is not service hired for valuable consideration so as to constitute a consumer dispute to be adjudicated u/s 13 of the Act.

          The dispute is hopelessly barred by limitation.

The consumer complaint is not maintainable considering the fact and circumstances of the case.

The complainant by his letter dt.13.2.86 page 15 of anexures authorized the o.p. to retain a sum of Rs.18,000/- and also deposited Rs.5100/- with o.p. in order to meet the financial liability that may be imposed on the o.p. by the Court where a case was pending against o.p. The petitioner also authorized o.p. to deduct a sum of Rs.300/- per month from his salary.

The complainant has asked for pensionary benefit which is guided by E.P.F. and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1972 which is a self continual statute and as such, this forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present consumer complaint. No consumer dispute has been raised by the petitioner. This dispute of this nature is to be adjudicated by an appropriate forum. The consumer complaint is thereby liable to be dismissed.

From the pleadings of the parties it is evident that the petitioner had retired from service from 12.2.86. His quarterly pension was fixed at Rs.1057.50 with effect from 13.2.86 after commutation and commuted value of pension amounting Rs.18,441.90.

The petitioner allowed vide his letter dt.4.5.84 the o.p. to deduct Rs.300/- per month from May 1984 from his salary and deposited Rs.5100/- with the o.p. to meet any liability arising out of the dispute in regard to flat occupied by petitioner under a land lady. His further instruction was to keep the amount in a separate deposit account and would be refunded to the petitioner in case Court order does not direct the above payment.

In terms of letter dt.12.2.86 and 13.2.86 petitioner allowed the o.p. to retain Rs.18,000/- the commuted value of pension as well as quarterly pension to the extent of Rs.900/- considering the suit filed by land lady in respect of premises occupied by petitioner.

He further authorized the o.p. to invest the sum of Rs.18,000/- in o.p’s fixed deposit scheme for 3 years carrying interest 15% p.a. and to renews the same if required and to pass to to petitioner half yearly interest and balance amount of Rs.441.90 (out of commuted value Rs.18441.90). The petitioner also authorized o.p. to deduct Rs.900/- per month from pension and to transfer the same for credit to the Suspense A/C.

The petitioner requested o.p. on 7.8.90 to refund the fixed deposit. The o.p. paid quarterly pension Rs.242/- after deduction Rs.900/- for the quarter ended 11.5.92.

The o.p. informed the petitioner on 31.8.94 that they took unilateral decision not to release pension amount and half yearly interest on fixed deposit for the period 30.6.94 onwards until petitioner made effective arrangement for withdrawal of suit against the complainant by land lady in violation of terms put forwarded by the petitioner in the year 1986.

The petitioner was enjoying the benefit of his deposit out of pension, cash deposit, fixed deposit with the o.p. i.e. he was receiving service of o.p. in lieu of his deposits but o.p. arbitrarily stop it compelling him to withdraw the suit.

Facts and circumstances do not disclose any dispute regarding pension. On the other hand it is evident that petitioner out of his own volition had kept his part pension amount, part salary amount, commuted amount and other amounts with the o.p. which o.p. has refused to release the invested amounts as per direction of the petitioner. In view of the fact petitioner became a consumer of service of o.p. on payment of conside4ration which the petitioner allowed o.p. to retain.

The o.p. had refused to release the above amount lastly on vide their letter dt.23.5.05. Accordingly petitioner moved this forum on 11.5.07. Therefore the present consumer complaint is within time and not barred by limitation.

In violation of the undertaken by the petitioner the o.p. arbitrarily refused to make any payment from 30.6.94 onwards which is amounting to deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. although the petitioner is entitled to get refund of  his dues lying deposit with the o.p. But the o.p. withheld the entire amount of the petitioner on the plea of the withdrawal of the suit filed by land lady against the o.p. and the petitioner which has no nexus with the present claim of the petitioner.

Considering all aspects of the matter petitioner is entitled to refund the entire amount which he kept with the o.p. out of his own accord. The consumer complaint accordingly succeeds and it is awarded in the following terms.

O.p. is directed to refund the entire amount of the petitioner which he deposited with the o.p. with interest @ 8% p.a. within two months from date, failing which it carry an interest @ 8% p.a. till recovery. O.p. is also directed to pay compensation Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and litigation cost Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within two months from date, failing which it will carry an interest @ 8% p.a. till recovery.

Let copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.