IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                     CASE No.  CC/41/2020

 Date of Filing:                                  Date of Admission:                        Date of Disposal:

   28.02.2020                                            17.03.2020                                        18.03.2024    

Complainant:    Angabala Das

                                W/o – Purna Chandra Das,

Village-Amuha,

P.O.- Kadamtala,

P.S.- Suti,

District- Murshidabad,

Pin-742224

                                                                -Vs-

Opposite Party  The Assistant P.F. Commissioner

                        Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

                        Regional Office,

                        3^rd & 4^th Floor,

                        Mohana Bus Stand Building,

                        P.O.- Berhampore,

                        P.S.- Berhampore,

                        Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742101.

Agent/Advocate for the Complainants                       :           Subhanjan Sengupta

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties                  :            Partha Majumder

           Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.    

                           Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.   

FINAL ORDER 

   SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY,  member.

   This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

One Angabala Das (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

 The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

The Complainant filed the instant petition stating that he had been serving for a continuous period of 9 years 11 months 29 days in the company. As per norms if anybody serves for a continuous period of 9 years 6 months then he/she will be entitled to get pension. But in spite of having the eligibility for pension the OP is denying to disburse the pension in favour of this Complainant. The Complainant had faced lots of trouble which was due to negligent attitude of the O.P.

  Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission for appropriate relief.   

Defence Case

O.P. is contesting this case by filing written version wherein all material allegations have been denied by him and moreover he stated that the Complainant submitted the claim in F/19 which was docket on 09.01.2014 and that claim was rejected on 31.01.2014 due to non submission of the annual return from the employer. Thereafter, complainant resubmitted her claim on 12.05.2014 and settled on 21.05.2014 of Rs. 7608/- and that claim was credited on 24.05.2014 in her account. The Complainant submitted her F/10D form on 31.12.2020 and that claim was settled with PPO no JLJNG00044103 Dt 20/01/2021 in her accounts no 1530010374781, IFSC UTBI0ABMF62. So there have no claim before the O.P. party. Complainant received all her claim and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.

On the basis of the complaint and written version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:

Points for decision

1. Is the Complainant consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point Nos. 1, 2 & 3

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

Today is fixed for filing evidence on the behalf of the Complainant as final chance but no evidence was adduced on behalf of the Complainant. The record shows that on 14.07.2023, 01.09.2023 and 11.12.2023 were also fixed for filing evidence by the Complainant but no evidence was filed on behalf of the Complainant.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P. is present. He fairly submits that the claim of the Complainant has already been settled. He drew our attention in Para 19 of the Written Version wherein it is stated that the Complainant submitted the claim in F/19 which was docket on 09.01.2014 and that claim was rejected on 31.01.2014 due to non submission of the annual return from the employer. Thereafter, complainant resubmitted her claim on 12.05.2014 and settled on 21.05.2014 of Rs. 7608/- and that claim was credited on 24.05.2014 in her account. The Complainant submitted her F/10D form on 31.12.2020 and that claim was settled with PPO no JLJNG00044103 Dt 20/01/2021 in her accounts no 1530010374781, IFSC UTBI0ABMF62. So there have no claim before the O.P. party. Complainant received all her claim and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.

In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 28.02.2020 and admitted on 17.03.2020. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.     

 Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is                                                            

      Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/41/2020 be and the same is dismissed on merit against the O.P. but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.  

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

    President

     Member                                                                                                                  President.