BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 101 of 2011 | Date of Institution | : | 23.02.2011 | Date of Decision | : | 01.09.2011 |
Sukhjit Kumar Duggal, aged 64 years (Senior Citizen) Assistant Manager (Q.C.) (Retd.), resident of House No. 413, Sector 7, Panchkula [Haryana]. …..Complainant V E R S U S [1] The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Quite Office 1 & 2, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. [2] The Deputy General Manager (CPF), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (North), Noida (U.P.). ……Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Rakesh K. Sharma, Counsel for Complainant. Sh. Santokh Singh, Counsel for OPs. PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant has filed the present complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. After serving the OP No.1, the Complainant was retired as Assistant Manager (Q.C.), on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.2005. His contention was that since the aforesaid employment was without any pension, therefore, he opted for a Scheme/Policy framed under the Pension Act, 1995, whereby the employees like the Complainant were provided with the benefit of family pension. He completed all the formalities and submitted the same to OP No.1, which after verifying the same forwarded to the OP No.2 for necessary compliance. It was alleged that thereafter, the OPs sit over his papers, and they neither gave any intimation, nor any reply whatsoever. The Complainant paid repeated visits to OP No.1, however, no plausible justification had been given. Faced with this situation, the Complainant got issued a legal notice dated 03.08.2009 and also wrote reminders to the OPs, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint. 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 3. The OPs in their written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that due to spurt of VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) during the relevant period more than 50% staff of CPF division of OP No.2 and substantial number of employees of other branches opted for VRS resulting in sudden increase of workload and therefore, some time was taken in processing the case of the Complainant. Besides this, sometime was also consumed in coordinating with different branches/offices to process the case. It was submitted that the EPF pension arrears amounting to Rs.89,286/- was credited on 14.6.2011 in the saving bank account of the Complainant maintained in SBI, Sector 10, Panchkula and in addition to this, a monthly pension of Rs.967/- has been released. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint. 4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. The close scrutiny of the zimini order dated 10.08.2011 shows that the OPs have released the EPF arrears and have also fixed the pension @ Rs.967/- per month. Therefore, the dispute between the parties remains only with regard to interest, compensation and litigation costs. 7. OPs have admitted in their reply that more than 50% staff of CPF Division of OP-2 and number of employees of other branches opted for VRS resulted in sudden increase of workload and therefore, some time was taken in processing the case of the complainant. 8. Now it is clear that the OPs have failed to process the case of the complainant due to the reason that there was decrease in the staff of CPF Division of OP-2. The mere fact that the substantial number of employees opted for VRS is not sufficient to justify the late processing of the case of the complainant as the OPs were at liberty to engage the employees either on daily basis, contract basis or otherwise as permissible by rules. Moreover, for the said lapse on the part of OPs, the complainant cannot be allowed to suffer, as he has no role to play in it. Thus, the OPs are liable to pay the compensation and litigation costs to the complainant. 9. As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy. 10. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. Pronounced 01.09.2011 Sd/- [P.D. GOEL] PRESIDENT Sd/- [RAJINDER SINGH GILL] MEMBER Sd/- [MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA] MEMBER
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
