HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants / opposite parties against the respondent / complainant challenging the impugned order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/258/2018 whereby the Learned District Commission allowed the complaint case filed by the respondent / complainant.

2. The respondent / complainant instituted the said complaint case being No. CC/258/2018 against the appellants / opposite parties praying for  the following reliefs :-

          “i) Give a direction upon the opposite parties for consideration of letter dated 14/08/2017 by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.70,864/- (Rupees  Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Four only) as per details given below :-

1. In respect of PPO No. WB/TLO/24445 @ Rs.1000/- pm from August ’17 to April ’18 i.e. 9 months Rs.10009=Rs.9000/-
2. In respect of PPO No. WB/TLO/38051 @ Rs.814/- pm from January ’12 to April ’18 i.e.

76 months. Rs.81476=Rs.61864/-

Total of A & B = Rs.9000+Rs.61864=Rs.70864/-

ii) Give a direction upon the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.500000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) for mental agony and harassment.

iii) To pay an amount Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) for litigation cost.

iv) To pass such other order or orders as your Honour may deem fit and proper.”

3. The appellants / opposite parties entered appearance in the said case and contested the case by filing written version.

4. The respondent / complainant and the appellants / respondents filed their evidences on affidavit and both sides filed questionnaires and their replies in support of their case.

5. After hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned District Commission was pleased to allow the said complaint case being No. CC/258/2018 by the order impugned which is reproduced as under :-

             “that the case be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the opposite parties.

The opposite parties are directed to continue payment of pension for the first account of complainant from the month it was stopped with all arrears and not to claim any refund of the back pension already paid to the complainant.

The O.Ps are also to take steps within two months from this date for making accounts of all the money accepted by them for the second account from the complainant’s husband and refund the same to the complainant along with 6% interest per annum thereon from the date of filing of this case till repayment.”

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Learned District Commission, the appellants / opposite parties have preferred the instant appeal.

7. Learned Lawyer appearing for the appellants has argued that the Learned District Commission passed the impugned order mechanically without application of his mind.

8. He has further argued that the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission is otherwise bad in law and based on perverse finding and is liable to be set aside.

9. He has further argued that the Learned District Commission is without any basis of the foundation because of the fact that the Learned District Commission did not assign any reason for coming such conclusion which is not permissible under any law.

10. He has further argued that any order cannot be passed mechanically.

11. He has further argued that if any member drawing on pension from one establishment and claiming pension from second establishment the member has to declare previous pension details in column No. 16 of F/10D Pension Claim Form. But in this particular case the pensioner did not submit any declaration in his previous pension details.

12. He has further argued that the claim of the respondents / complainants is out and out illegal and she is not entitled to get any relief in the present complaint case. So, the appeal should be allowed and the impugned order dated 14.12.2022 passed in connection with case No. CC/258/2018 passed by the Learned District Commission should be set aside.

13. On the other hand, Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents / complainants has argued that the Learned District Commission has correctly passed the order. There is no irregularity in the judgment passed by the Learned District Commission.

14. He has further argued that the appellants / opposite parties illegally and mala fidely and vindictively stopped the entire amount of the pension drawn through UBI from August, 2017.

15. He has further urged that the appellants / respondents did not convert the pension fund contribution to the Provident Fund contribution to the employer’s share which is applicable in case of a member which is not eligible for member under EPS 1995.  As such, the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainants / respondents has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

16. Upon hearing the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on careful perusal of the materials available on record including the memo of appeal and other documents I find that it is an admitted position that the husband of the respondent / complainant was a part time employee working at M/s. Everest Engineering Tools Maker and also M/s Air Equipments Works and he was a covered employee of EPF Scheme 1952 and EPS Scheme 1995 for both the establishments holding PF and Pension Account being No. WB/TLO/25327/2 and WB/TLO/11065/47.

17. It is also an admitted position that the respondent’s husband’s Provident Fund and Pension Fund contribution was deducted and deposited as statutory rate through his employers and both the accounts were maintained at Sub Regional Office at Barrackpore.

18. It is also an admitted position that after leaving from the service on 30^th September, 1999 and 30^th April, 2008 from the above mentioned two establishments the husband of the complainant / respondent applied for settlement of PF and Pension Fund which was settled by EPFO, SRO, Barrackpore.

19. It is also an admitted position that monthly reduced pension was granted and made through P.P.O. No. WB/TLO/24445 @ Rs.525/- per month with effect from 7^th July, 2006 through UBI, Hridaypur Branch being Account No. 1408010180542 and through P.P.O. No. WB/TLO/38051 @Rs.814/- per month with effect from 26^th June, 2009 through P.N.B., Barasat Branch A/c No. 3910000108102339.

20. It is also an admitted position that on 4^th February, 2021 the husband of the complainant / respondent died leaving behind the complainant and his two sons.

21. It is also an admitted position that after the death of her husband the complainant was drawing pension from UBI, Hridaypur Branch being A/c No. 1408010180542 but no pension was drawn from the P.N.B., Barasat Branch being A/c. No. 3910000108102339.

22. It is also an admitted position that in order to regularise the matter the complainant / respondent applied for merging of two pensions into one single pension with effect from 26^th June, 2009 before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Barrackpore who ordered to refund the amount of Rs.23,742/- as excess amount of pension drawn by the complainant due to double pension.

23. Now, I shall have to consider as to whether the appellants / opposite parties illegally stopped the entire amount of pension drawn through the UBI from August, 2017 and whether the appellant illegally did not convert the Pension Fund contribution to the Provident Fund contribution in employer’s share which is applicable in case of a member who is not eligible for member under EPS 1995. On careful perusal of the record including the materials available on record I find that the employers deducted the provident fund for both the accounts which were deposited to the appellant who accepted the same. The payment of pensions continued for so many years for both the accounts. I am of the view that if the back amount is already disbursed are ordered to be refunded, the complainant and her both the children will suffer a great loss and hardship. Therefore, it would not be just and proper to direct the complainant to refund the amount and the opposite parties / appellants should not be asked for refund of the amount already disbursed. The opposite parties are under obligation to return the money they have received from the complainant’s husband towards Provident Fund from the second account which was stated to be illegal because the opposite parties have failed to disburse the pension and they should not be allowed to digest the money deposited to them.

24. Under this facts and circumstances, I am of the view that if the two pension accounts cannot be continued or merged into a single one for any legal bar then the appellants / opposite parties should not ask for refund of back pension from the complainant as a result of which must face great loss and hardship.

25. On careful perusal of the evidence on record I find that the opposite parties have failed to prove that there was any mala fide intention on the part of the husband of the complainant or any suppression of fact on their part regarding the second pension. The appellants are in that case to refund the complainant all the amount received by them from the husband of the complainant time to time regarding the second Provident Fund Account along with interest thereon because the appellants / opposite parties  cannot take  the money from the husband of the complainant, then refuse to disburse the pensions. Since the appellant / respondent cannot disburse the pension, then must refund all the amount mistakenly received by them.

26. I am of the view that Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme and pension were enacted by the legislation to help the poor citizens for their livelihood and the legislation is welfare legislation for the interest, benefit of the common people of this country.

27. Under this facts and circumstances and on going through the materials available on record I am of the view that the Learned District Commission properly considered the evidences, facts and circumstances of the case and finally arrived at the conclusion and passed the impugned judgment which, according to me, calls for no interference by this Commission and, as such, it is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

28. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat in connection with consumer case No. CC/258/2018 is hereby confirmed. There will be no order as to costs.

29. The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.

30. Consequently, I.A. being No. 236/2024 stands dismissed.