Karnataka

StateCommission

A/850/2014

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.C. Basappa - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

03 Apr 2023

ORDER

                                                                 Date of Filing:27.06.2014

                                                          Date of Disposal : 03.04.2023

 

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

 

DATED : 03.04.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL Nos.849/2014 and 850/2014

 

 

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Sub-Regional Office

3^rd Floor, SLV Towers

Parvathi Nagar

Bellary                                                                               Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate

(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)

 

             -Versus-

 

Appeal No.849/2014

1.  Mr B Wazid Khan

     S/o Mr Basheer Khan

     Major

     R/o D.No.35, Azad Nagara

     II Main, Chitradurga

     (By Mr K.R.Chandre Gowda Advocate)

 

2. The Divisional Controller

    K.S.R.T.C

    Davanagere Division

    P.B.Road,

    Davanagere                                                                Respondents

  

Appeal No.850/2014

1.  Mr T.C Basappa

     S/o Mr Channappa

     Aged 72 years

     R/o C/o A.B.Tippeswamy

     B.J.R Extension

     Ullar Road, Hiriyur

     Chitradurga District

     (By Mr Ravindra Kumar A Advocate)                                           

 

 

2.   The Divisional Controller

      K.S.R.T.C

      Davanagere Division

      P.B.Road

      Davanagere                                                              Respondents   

                                        : COMMON ORDER :

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       Both the Appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by OP aggrieved by the Order dated 28.03.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.79/2013 & 74/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Davanagere (for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of learned counsel for Appellant and Respondent No.1.  Inspite of service of notice to Respondent No.2, none appeared and hence, the arguments of Respondent No.2 in both the Appeals is taken as heard.

3.       On perusal of the record, it reveals that both the complainants were employed in KSRTC and they were working in Davanagere Division. They were contributing under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1971 and continued to contribute in EPFS 1995.    

4.       The Complainant in Appeal No.849/2014 retired from the service on 04.06.2008 at the age of 56 years by rendering past service of 12 years and actual service of 13 years. 

5.       Whereas Complainant in Appeal No.850/2014 retired from the service on 31.05.1999 at the age of 54 years by rendering past service of 21 years and actual service of 3 years, 6 months.

6.       Under the circumstances, as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood before 24.07.2009 the pensioner is required to fulfil either of the condition of attaining the age of 58 years or completion of pensionable service of 20 years as on the date of retirement.  Here in these two cases, both the Complainants have complied with the condition of Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood before 24.07.2009 hence, they are eligible for weightage of two years. 

7.       Further, with regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension, it is observed that Complainant in Appeal No.849/2014 retired after 15.06.2007, hence his Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood after 15.06.2007, while Complainant in Appeal No.850/2014 retired before 15.06.2007 hence, his Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007. 

8.       However, in Appeal No. 850/2014, the learned counsel for the Appellant filed a memo with document stating that the Appellant had been granted weightage of two years, revised the monthly pension and paid the entitled arrears of Rs.13,881/- for the period from 09.10.1999 to 30.06.2014 to the complainant on 01.08.2014. On perusal of the document No.1 it reveals that the Appellant has been revised the complainant’s entitled monthly pension by granting weightage of two years and has been paid arrears to the complainant belatedly and that too after the complainant raised a consumer complaint before the District Forum. Thus District Forum is right in directing Appellant to pay the applicable interest, cost and compensation to complainant.

9.       Whereas, in Appeal No.849/2014, the Appellant has not revised the pension of the complainant by giving weightage of two years and not paid the arrears of pension till the complainant had raised a consumer complaint.  To rebut the same, the Appellant has taken a ground that the pension has been calculated and paid the reduced pension to the respondent prior to the date of superannuation.  The Respondent did not raise any question on the correctness of the same till 2013 and in 2013 he had come up with a stand that the amount of pension paid by the Appellant is incorrect. Since the complaint is filed after 14 years and it is hopelessly barred by Limitation.  The District Forum without taking into consideration of the facts has passed the order is arbitrary and illegal, hence, deserves to the set aside.

10.     Notwithstanding anything, that this complainant has instituted the complaint from the date of his coming to knowledge on the error in fixing the pension by the Appellant and from that date only the cause of the action will commence to raise a complaint. Hence, complainant filed the complaint before the District forum is well within the period of limitation. In the circumstances, the act of appellant in not revising the pension by granting weightage of two years and arrears to the complainant definitely amounts to deficiency in service.  It is for the Appellant to revise the monthly pension of the complainant by granting weightage of two years and arrears fallen due in Appeal No.849/2014.

11.     In such a view of the matters, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is just & proper and same does not call for any interference from this Commission.  However, we are of the considered opinion that awarding of interest @ 9% p.a is slightly on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeal No. 849 and 850/2014 are allowed in part and consequently, Impugned Order dated 28.03.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.79/2013 & 74/2013 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Davanagere is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned.  The cost and compensation awarded by the District Forum remaines undisturbed and Appellant is directed to comply with this order within 60 days from the date of the order.

 

12.     The statutory deposit in these two Appeals is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

13.     Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.849/2014 and copy thereof, in Appeal No.850/2014.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

                                                                        President

*s