BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 29th day of March, 2006.
CD.No.44/2005
Mehran Bee W/o Dasthagiri Sab,
Muslim, Female, Aged about 50 years,
R/o H.No.30-31, Chittari Streer,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
V/s
1. Syed Nizamuddin,
Beedi Manufacturers Pvt., Ltd.,
Essen Tobacco Beedi Manufacturers Pvt., Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager,
Mr. Ameen Mohammed Shareef,
R/o H.No.36-209, Chittari Street,
Kurnool.
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Regional Office, Barkathpura,
Hyderabad.
3. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Organisation,
Sub-Regional Office,
Kadapa. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri T.Kumar Babu, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri S.Safaquath Hussain, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1, and opposite party No. 2 represented by in person and Sri.L.Viswanatham, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.3, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri.R.Ramachandra Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
1. This CD case of the complainant is filed under Sections11 and 12 of C.P. Act, seeking direction on the opposite parties to grant monthly member pension regularly at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month, to grant the sum of Rs.1,68,000/- as pension arrears from the date of her husbands death i.e. from 19-2-1991 to till the month of March 2005, to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony along with other remedies which the exigencies of the case demand.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband worked as a Bedi checker (Maistry) in the opposite party No.1 Bedi factory, died on 18-2-1991. He was enrolled as a member in the E.P.F organization with a code No.P.F Account No.AP/1818697/559 and his PF contributions was covered under E.P.F scheme from 1-2-1986 and he died while in service on 18-2-1991 and received provident fund amount of her husband from opposite party No.3 and as per family pension fund, 1971 Act, if the worker dies while in service, the wife of the worker is entitled for widow pension. As such she submitted form No.20 and form No.10 (A) for the purpose of provident fund amount and pensionary benefits. The opposite party No.3 sanctioned provident fund amount only. She made a representation on 17-1-2005 to opposite party No.2 for the purpose of widow pension. But after correspondence the opposite party No.2 rejected the claim of her with regard to pensionary benefits on 15-2-2005 stating that she is not eligible for the pensionary benefits. In the previous letter by opposite party No.3 dated 30-7-2004 he showed the reason for rejecting the claim is “There are no contributions for the year 1990 and 1991 credited to account No.559 as per the form No.6-A submitted by the opposite party No.1” . Since her husband died in the year 1991 so as the scheme applies is 1971 family fund act. As per the said act two years contributions towards provident fund are enough for getting the pensionary benefits. Even though contributions were paid in the year 1990-1991 the opposite party No.3 is suppressing the facts and saying that there are no contributions in the year 1990-1991. The ledger for the year 1991 clearly shows the contributions towards the provident fund amount by her husband i.e. Late Dastagiri Sab. By suppressing facts in the ledger book the opposite party No.3 is denying the benefit of widow pension to her. The ledger book with the opposite party No.3 and form No.9 and ledge book shows the particulars of contributions to PF account No.AP/18697/559. As this attitude of opposite party No.3 without reasonable grounds in not granting the monthly member pension regularly and pension arrears due to the said deficient conduct of opposite parties, the complainant suffered much mental agony.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 and 3 counsels appears on their behalf and contested the case by filing the written versions and opposite party No.2 adopted the written version of opposite party No.3 denying any deficiency of service on their party and there by any of their liability to the claim of the complainant and so seeking dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The written version of opposite party No.1 admits that the complainant’s husband worked as a Bedi worker in this opposite party’s Bedi factory and he was enrolled as a member in the E.P.F organization with a code PF account No.AP/18697/559 and contributions were made under EPF scheme from 1-2-1986 till his death and the allegations made in para 3, 4, 5, to 7 of the compliant of the complainant are also not denied. As there are no allegations of any deficiency of service in the complaint against this opposite party No.1 as such this opposite party No.1 is not at all a necessary party to this complaint. Unnecessarily this opposite party has been dragged on into this proceedings. And the said complaint may be pleased to dismiss against this opposite party No.1 with costs.
5. The written version of opposite party No.3, the same was adopted by the opposite party No.2 admits that Late Dastagiri Sab was member under EPF and MP Act, 1952 with code No.AP/18697/559 by his employment in opposite party No.1 factory and was joined in the said establishment on 1-2-1986 and died on 18-2-1991. As per para 28 of employees family pension scheme, 1971 if a member of the family pension fund dies during the period of reckonable service before attaining the age of 60 years, the family members are eligible to receive family pension. And the opposite party No.3 has sanctioned provident fund but form No.10-A was returned for the reason that the Late Dastagiri Sab death was not occurred during reckonable service. As per the annual returns i.e. form No.6-A submitted by the opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.3 for the year 1991 there were no provident fund contributions deducted and remitted in respect of Late Dastagiri Sab’s Account No.AP/18697/559 who was joined on 1-2-1986 and died on 18-2-1991 after leaving the service of establishment. Since member’s death was not occurred during the period of reckonable service the claimant is not eligible for pensionary benefits under para 28 of employees’ family pension scheme, 1971. Further, as per the annual returns i.e. Form No.6-A submitted by opposite party No.1 to the opposite party No.3 for the year 1990-1991, there ware not provident fund/family pension fund contributions deducted and remitted in respect of Late Dastagiri Sab(AP/18697/559). So the death was not occurred during the period of reckonable service. It is necessary that the death should be occurred while in reckonable service and before attainment of 60 years to sanction monthly pension under employees family pension scheme,1971. As such the complainant is not eligible for pensionary benefits under para 28 of the employees family pension scheme 1971 and hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.3 and it is prayed that Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against him in the interest of justice.
6. In substantiation of case averments while the complainant side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A3 besides the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its case, the opposite parties side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.B1 and their sworn affidavits in reiteration of its defense. Further the complainant and opposite parties exchanged between them interrogatories and their replies along with their written arguments for the appreciation of their case.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service in the conduct of the opposite parties in not grating the monthly member pension regularly to the complainant and pension arrears after the death of the member i.e. complainants husband, so as to enable herself to the reliefs claimed?
8. The Ex.A1 is an original subscriber’s Annual Statement of Account for the year 1991-1992 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, A.P pertaining to the complainants husband account No.AP/18697/559 which shows closing balance of employees contribution as Rs.446/- and employers contribution as Rs.446/- for the year 1991-1992. The Ex.A2 is an attested Xerox office copy of the letter dated 17-1-2005 addressed to opposite party No.2 by the complainant under copy to the opposite party No.3 and one N.S.Krishna, President, Kurnool Bedi worker’s union (INTUC) Kurnool. In response to the letter No.AP/18697/559/A.G.II-5/2004/159 dated 30-7-2004 of opposite party No.3 (Ex.A3) the copy of it was marked to the complainant also. In the Ex.A2 the complainant informed to the opposite party No.2 about the submission of form No.10-A to the opposite party No.3 for sanction of family pension in respect of her husband Late Dastagiri Sab who died on 18-2-1991 but the opposite party No.3 returned the claim vide his letter No.AP/18697/559/A.G.II-5/2004/159 dated 30-7-2004 stating that there were no contributions for the year 1990-1991 and she was not eligible for family pension. In this regard she stated that her husband worked up to the date of his death (18-2-1991) and contributed to the fund and she joined in the said factory (opposite party No.1) on 01-03-1991 and contributed to the fund from 01-03-1991 onwards with account No.AP/18697/559A. But she astonished from the said letter of the opposite party No.3 (Ex.A3) that the contribution for the year 1990-1991 were shown in her name when she was not in employment with the said factory during 1990-1991. The Ex.A3 is an attested Xerox copy of the letter No.AP/18697/559/A.G-II-5/2004/159 dated 30-7-2004 of opposite party No.3 addressed to the opposite party No.1 under copy to the complainant, and the said contents of the letter were discussed in the Ex.A2 which was addressed to the opposite party No.2.
9. The Ex.B1 is Form ‘A’ (Revised) The Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (PARAGRAPH 43) And The Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971/PARAGRAPH 15 (4) which contains statement of contribution for the currency period from MARCH 1990 to FEBRUARY 1991- pertaining to code No. of the Establishment AP/18697. Wherein at Sl.No.457 for Account No.559A against the complainants name the wages mentioned as Rs.1,013.70 Ps. and amount of worker’s contribution deducted form the wages towards E.P.F as Rs.76/-, F.P.S 1.1/6% as Rs.11/- total as Rs.87/-. The same amounts were mentioned in the employer’s contribution respectively towards E.P.F, F.P.F and total as of worker’s contribution as mentioned above.
10. As seen from the Ex.A1 which clearly shows the complainant’s husband contribution towards E.P.F and its matching contribution from the employer for the year 1991-1992. The Ex.B1 shows the contributions of the complainant for the account No.559a at Sl.No.457 with hand corrections not attested by the concerned official from March 1990 to February 1991. As when the complainant’s husband died on 18-2-1991 how it is possible to contribute by the complainant form the March of 1990 to February 1991, which is quite contradicting with Ex.A1 wherein the complainant’s husband contribution are mentioned for the year 1991-1992. Neither the opposite party No.2 nor the opposite party No.3 explained this discrepancy beyond any doubt in support of their case how the complainant will come into the establishment of opposite party No.1 during March 1990 to February 1991and what basis the wage at column No.4 arrived at Rs.1,013.70 Ps. (Ex.B1) when the husband of the complainant died on 18-2-1991 and further the opposite party No.2’s original slip of complainant’s husbands contribution (Ex.A1) for the year 1991-1992 are existing as per their records. Further the opposite party No.2 and 3 has not made any endeavour to establish their bonafidies in not granting the monthly member pension and the pension arrears which the complainant alleged in its complaint and in support of his documents i.e. Ex.A1 to A3 she produced for their appreciation, especially for the letter of the complainant i.e. Ex.A2 which was addressed to the opposite party No.2 under copy to opposite party No.3 wherein the complainant clearly mention she joined in the said factory on 1-3-1991 i.e. after the death of her husband i.e. 18-2-1991.
11. In pursuance of the written arguments of opposite party No.2 the complainant’s counsel in his written arguments took reliance on the admission of the opposite party No.1 that the complainant’s husband died during reckonable service and paid contribution till his death, but the opposite party No.2 and 3 not caused any interrogatories to the opposite party No.1 in this regard to contradict the above admission of the opposite party no.1 by eliciting relevant record from the said opposite party No.1 to substantiate their case. Further, the complainant’s counsel in its written arguments relied on para 28 (1) of E.F.P scheme 1991, only one years contributions are enough to get the family pension. But in this case five years contributions are there, even as per opposite party No.1’s version the complainant’s husband died while he was in service. Further, the complainant demanded the opposite party No.2 and 3 to produce Form No. 3(A) for the year 1990-91, because it shows the monthly contributions, contributed by the member as well as employer. The question No.4 in the interrogatories filed on behalf of the complainant to the opposite party No.2 and 3 is relating to Form No.3(A). But the said Form No.3(A) is not produced. The Form No.6(A) is only the consolidation of Forms 3(A). But Form No.3 (A) is the primary document. The complainant demanded the ledger extract for the year 1990-91 but they have failed to produce the same. Para 7 of the complaint and question No.3 of the interrogatories filed on behalf of the complainant to the opposite party No.2 & 3 is relating to this point. As per 114 G of Indian Evidence Act, the documents which could be produced, is not produced, if produced would go against the person who withholds it. In the case on hand the opposite party No.1 has admitted that the complainant’s husband rendered service till his death and paid contributions as per condition stated in paragraph 28 of the above scheme which he has contributed to the family pension fund for a period more than one year and also he has been member of family pension fund till his death.
12. The opposite party No.2 has relied on the judgment of Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in II (2003) CPJ 558 about the limitation in this case, but this judgment is not relevant in the present case as opposite party No.3 (Ex.A3) on 30-7-2004 replied to the opposite party No.1 and complainant with three reference letters and this material creates limitation to the present case since this case filed on 7-4-2005 i.e. within limitation.
13. Hence, the opposite party No.2 and 3 miserably failed to substantiate their case against the cogent material filed by the complainant’s side, the act of opposite party No.2 and 3 in not granting monthly member pension regularly at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month, a sum of Rs.1,68,000/- pension arrears from the date of death of her husband i.e. from 19-2-1991 to till the month of March 2005 to the complainant as is reaming without any justifiable excuse, the said conduct of opposite party No.2 and 3 is certainly amounting to failure on the part of opposite party No.2 and 3 in performing the statutory duty in not granting the above said amounts to the complainant and there by amounting to deficiency of service and there by entitling the complainant to the claim as the bonafidies of the complainant claim are not otherwise disturbed.
14. As there is no relief sought against the opposite party No.1 by the complainant the case against the opposite party No.1 is dismissed without costs.
15. In the result and in sum up of the above discussion, the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party No.2 and 3 jointly and severally to pay monthly member pension regularly at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month, to pay a sum of Rs.1,68,000/- as pension arrears from the date of death of her husband i.e. from 19-2-1991 to till the month of March 2005 with interest at 9% per annum, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of this case, and the opposite party No.2 and 3 is granted one month time for the compliance of this order. In default, the opposite party No.2 and 3 shall pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of the said default till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 29th day of March, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Form No.23, Pension Provident Fund slip for 1991-1992.
Ex.A2 Letter, Dt.17-1-2005 of complainant to opposite party No.2.
Ex.A3 Letter, Dt.30-7-2004 addressed to opposite party No.1 copy to
complainant.
Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Form 6-A Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 year 1990-91.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. T.Kumar Babu, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri. S.Safaquath Hussain, Advocate, Kurnool
3. Sri. L.Viswanatham, Advocate, Kurnool
4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund
Organization, Regional Office, Barkathpura, Hyderabad.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
