Karnataka

Tumkur

CC/133/2016

Abdul Rasheed - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Commissioner P.F. - Opp.Party(s)

T.R.

27 Apr 2017

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 01-10-2016                                                      Disposed on: 27-04-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

 

 

CC.No. 132/2016 to CC. No.134/2016 (3 cases)

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

 

PRESENT

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT,

SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER

 

 

Complainants: -                                                                      

1. CC.No.132/2016

Kannappa.K,

4^th Cross, Vinayaka Nagar,

PH Colony, Tumakuru Town,

Tumakuru District

             

2. CC.No.133/2016

Abdul Rasheed,

Aged about 75 years,

Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,

Malekote post,

Tumakuru town,

Tumakuru district

 

3. CC.No.134/2016

Narasimha Rao,

Aged about 73 years,

Sri Ramanagar, 1^st Main road,

1^st Cross, Tumakuru town,

Tumakuru district

 (All the complainants Reptd. by Advocate Sri.T.Ramaiah) 

 

V/s

 

 

 

 

Opposite parties:-        

1. The Assistant Commissioner, P.F.Sub-Regional office, Peenya, Bengaluru-88
2. The Divisional Controller, [DC]

KSRTC Bus Stand, Tumkur.      

(OP No.1 by advocate Sri.G.H.Sreenivasa)

(OP No.2 by advocate Sri.I.K.Parveen)

 

COMMON ORDER

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K, PRESIDENT

Since the OP No.1 and 2 in these 3 cases are one and the same, but the complainants are different and the facts of these cases are identical, so in order to avoid confusion, repetition of discussion of facts and also to avoid conflict of the opinion, all applications are clubbed together and disposed off under a common order.

 

2. These complaints have filed these complainants against the OP No.1 and 2, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

3. Through these complaints, the respective complainants prays to direct the 1^st OP to release the more deducted of commutation amount and to pay arrears with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and from the month of wrong deducted, as per para 17 (a) of EPS 1995; and to give pension without deduction of commutation amount and to pay pension as per EPS 1995; and to award Rs.3,000=00 each to the complainants as cost of the proceedings and award compensation towards mental agony, in the interest of justice and equity.

 

 

 

 

4. The common brief facts of the complaints are as under.

The complainants’ in complaints Nos.132/2016 to 134/2016 have filed their respective complaints against the OP No.1 and 2 claiming certain reliefs with almost common facts.  The complainants were working in 2^nd OP. However, there is a difference with regard to the date of retirement, date of joining and the pension fixed.  Therefore, the same have been mentioned in the below mentioned table.

Sl. No.	CC. Nos.	Complainant Names	Date of joining	Date of retirement	Pension fixed by the 1st OP per month In (Rs.)
01	132/2016	Kannappa.K.	23-4-2972	25-5-2000	435/-
02	133/2016	Abdul Rasheed	22-1-1975	29-2-2000	596/-
03	134/2016	Narasimha Rao	11-5-1971	31-7-2001	641/-

 

In the year of 1971, the 1^st OP introduced the Pension Scheme namely Family Pension Scheme 1971 with effect from 1-6-1971. The membership to the Family Scheme was optional. The complainants opted to join the Family Pension Scheme. The membership to the said scheme was accepted by the 1^st OP and the family pension account numbers were allotted to the complainants. Thereafter, the 2^nd OP deducted the monthly subscription from the complainants’ monthly salary and the same was remitted to the 1^st OP.

          The complainants further submitted that, in the year 1995, the 1^st OP repealed the Family Pension Scheme 1971 and introduced the new scheme known as Employees Pension Scheme 1995 with effect from 16-11-1995. The 1^st OP asked the complainants to submit their willingness to transfer the amount accumulated in the old scheme to new scheme and the 1^st OP accepted the willingness and continued the complainants in new scheme.

          The complainants further submitted that, after retirement, the 2^nd OP has sent all the service records and other details to the 1^st OP. Thereafter, the 1^st OP settled/fixed the monthly pension of the complainants.

          The complainants further submitted that, in the month of Sept.2016, it came to the knowledge of the complainants through one of their colleagues that, there are errors in the deduction of pension and it also came to their knowledge that the pension deduction more by the pensioner.

          The complainants further submitted that, the 2^nd OP introduced an option for the commutation or loan to the pensioners. A member eligible to pension May, in lieu of pension normally admissible under paragraph 12 opt on completion of three years from the commencement of this scheme to commute upto a maximum of one third of his pension so as to receive 100 times the monthly pension, so commuted as commuted value of pension. Balance pension will be paid on monthly basis as per option exercised under paragraph 13. There is error in the deduction of pension. The 1^st OP deducted more amounts in the pension after completed of 100 times as per EPS 1995. Immediately, after coming to knows about the error in the deduction of monthly pension.

The complainants further submitted that, the 1^st OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The 1^st OP has no power to deduction after 100 times or 100 instalments completed as per EPS 1995. The 1^st OP shall be liable to pay more deducted of commutation amount from pension to pay pensioners as pr EPS 1995. The 1^st OP shall be liable to pay at 12% interest as pr para 17 (A) of EPS 1995 from the date of wrong deduction of commutation. Hence the complainants are constrained to file these complaints before the Forum

          The complainants further submitted that, the period of limitation starts from the date on which it came to the knowledge of the complainants about the erroneous deduction. The complainants came to knows about the erroneous deduction of pension. Hence the present complaints are filed. 

                   

5. In response to the notice, the OP Nos.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed separate versions to the respective complaints.

 

6. In the version, the 1^st OP submitted that, the complaints are not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed with cost.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainants are pensioners under EPS 1995. The date of commencement of pension are15-4-2001, 26-7-2001 and 1-3-2000 respectively and complainants have opted for commutation and one third of the original pension i.e. Rs.242/-, Rs.214/- and Rs.222/- were commuted and the commuted value of the pension amounting to Rs.24,200/-, Rs,22,200/- and 21,400/- were paid to them. Consequently on the option for commutation of pension the original pension were revised and reduced to Rs.483/-, Rs.445/- and Rs.247 and less 10% return of capital @ Rs.48/-, Rs.45/- and Rs.43 and the ROC also reduced to Rs.48,300/-, Rs.44,500/- and 42,700/- under para 13.1. Accordingly, the member pensions are fixed at Rs.435/-, Rs.400/- and Rs.384/- and is being paid. Further as per G.S.R.593 (E) dated 19-8-2014 with effect from 1^st Sept.2014 minimum pension of members is fixed at Rs.1,000=00 and Rs.710/-, Rs.733/- and Rs.743/- are being paid after statutory deduction of Rs.290/-, Rs.267/- and Rs.257/-.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, there is no provision in the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995 to restore the original pension after completion of 100 months. In this regard, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.4545/2013 in its order dated 18-11-2013 had held that “A member of Employees Pension Scheme on his retirement has an option whether to avail off the full pension or to commute a part of the pension and receive the lump-sum amount in lieu thereof. Clause 13 (2) of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 stipulates that the option if exercised is final and not revocable. The scheme does not provide for restoration of commuted pension after expiry of stipulated period. In this instant case, admittedly the petitioner opted for commutation of his pension under the scheme and received the lump-sum amount in lieu of the commuted portion of pension. Thus in view of Rule 13 (2) of the scheme, the petitioner after having exercised his option cannot claim the restoration of the commuted portion of pension. The respondent department while denying restoring the commuted pension has acted in accordance with Rule 13 of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Therefore, it cannot said to be deficient in service”. 

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the Provident Fund Department is only an agency to disburse the monthly pension along with Provident Fund dues of the employees of private companies, who are the subscribers of the Employees Provident Fund Organization. Amendments to the constitution of any Act or Law can be dealt with by a separate body and this OP has no say in the matter.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, eligible pension is paid to the deserving pensioners as per the calculation, depending on the length of service/salary drawn/date of birth and date of exit. All pensioners are treated alike, without any discrimination. 

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the claim of the complainant for an amount of Rs.3,000=00 towards cost of the proceedings is exorbitant, frivolous and only to bring the complaints within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainants are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaints with costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

 

7. In the version, the 2^nd OP submitted that, the complainants are does not fall under definition of Consumer as defined in the Act. Therefore, the complaints are liable to be dismissed in limine.

The 2^nd OP further submitted that, the averments made in the para no.1 of the complaints are admitted and other averments made in the complaints are denied as false and incorrect and the complainants are put to strict proof of the same.

The 2^nd OP further submitted that, the complainants have joined service and they were retired from the service. The complainants have already been granted pension as per the scheme. The complainants have received GPF amount. There are no further amounts are to be paid and if there is variation/difference/shortage, the same can be adjudicated with the 1^st OP under the Provisions of Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme. Therefore the present claims are liable to be dismissed. This Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim and there is no limitation to file these complaints.

The 2^nd OP further submitted that, since no relief is claimed against the 2^nd OP and there is no cause of action attributed against the 2^nd OP, hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaints, in the interest of justice and equity. 

 

8. In the course of enquiry in to the complaints, the complainants and OP No.1 and 2 have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaints and version. The complainants have filed their written arguments and produced documents which were marked as Ex-C1 to C4.  In CC.No.132/2016 the 1^st OP has produced a memo dated 17-3-2016 along with document. We have heard the arguments of both parties and pursed the documents and then posted the cases for orders.

 

6. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

 

1.      Whether the complainants have proved the alleged deficiency in service by the 1^st OP?

2.      What order?

 

7. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:          In the negative

Point No.2:          As per order below

 

 

REASONS

 

 

8. It is an admitted fact that, the complainants’ in complaint Nos.132/2016 to 134/2016 are the retired from the service on 25-5-2000, 29-2-2000 and 31-7-2001 respectively. At the time of retirement, the complainants had opted for commutation and received the commuted value of pension amount of Rs.24,200/-, Rs.19,900/- and Rs.21,400/- respectively. The commuted value is 100 times the commuted pension. The commuted value is deducted from the complainants’ pension. It is also admitted fact that, the 1^st OP had deducted the commuted pension in complaints Nos.132/2016 to 134/2016 for Rs.242/-, Rs.199/- and Rs.214/- respectively.   

 

9. The main contention of the complainants is that, as per the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995, the 1^st OP has to deduct the commutation for 100 months. But the 1^st OP had deducted the commutation after completion of 100 months.

 

10. On perusal of the documents produced by the complainants. In the particulars statement of pension in complaint Nos.132/2016 to 134/2016, it is seen that, date of enter into entry commutation is mentioned as 15-4-2001, 1-3-2000 and 26-7-2001 respectively and monthly reduced pension is mentioned as Rs.242/-, Rs.199/- and Rs.214/-. But, nowhere in the above documents produced by the complainants it is not mentioned as it will be ended after 100 months and restore the original pension.

 

11. Further, the complainants have produced Prajavani news paper. On perusal of the said news paper statement, it is seen that, the P.F.Association made several demands before the Provident Fund Commissioner and the Provident Fund Commissioner has stated as under:

“ªÀÄ£À« ¹éÃPÀj¹ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀ ¨sÀ«µÀå ¤¢ü DAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÉ.J£ï.£ÁAiÀÄPï. gÀÆ.1000=00 QÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ ¦AZÀt ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ 100 wAUÀ¼À £ÀavÀgÀªÀÇ ¦AZÀt PÀrvÀªÁUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄUÀ½zÀÝgÉ °TvÀªÁV zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ  ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÀÄ”    

 

          12. On the above news paper statement, the Provident Fund Commissioner nowhere stated they will restore the original pension after completion of 100 months.

 

          13. Further, on perusal of the Paragraph 13 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 wherein there is no provision for restore the original pension after completion of 100 months.

 

14. In view of the above said facts of the cases. The complainants have failed to show that, the 1^st OP had assured that, they will restore the original pension after completion of 100 months. Hence, there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st OP.

 

15. Further, the 1^st OP has produced the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.4545/2013 in its order dated 18-11-2013 has held that,

“A member of Employees Pension Scheme on his retirement has an option whether to avail off the full pension or to commute a part of the pension and receive the lump-sum amount in lieu thereof. Clause 13 (2) of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 stipulates that the option if exercised is final and not revocable. The scheme does not provide for restoration of commuted pension after expiry of stipulated period. In this instant case, admittedly the petitioner opted for commutation of his pension under the scheme and received the lump-sum amount in lieu of the commuted portion of pension. Thus, in view of Rules 13 (2) of the scheme, the petitioner after having exercised his option cannot claim the restoration of the commuted portion of pension. The OP department while denying to restore the commuted pension has acted in accordance with Rule 13 of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Therefore, it cannot said to be deficient in service”.

 

          16. Based on the above judgment and fact of the cases, we answer the point no.1 in the negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMON ORDER

 

          The complaints of complainants bearing No.132/2016 to 133/2016 are hereby dismissed. No costs.

 

          It is ordered that, the original order shall be kept in the complaint No.132/2016 and copy thereof in complaint Nos.133/2016 and 134/2016.

           

Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 27^th day of April 2017)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT