BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member President (FAC)

And

     Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Thursday the 30^th day of May, 2013

C.C.No.99/2012

Between:

U.Garjappam  S/o U.C.Earanna,

D.No.5/2185, Laxmi Peta, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District.                          

                …Complainant

                                                    -Vs-      

1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,         O/o The Employee Provident Fund Organization,

   1/30, Railway Station Road, Kadapa - 516 004.

2. The Enforcement Officer, EPF Office,

   Ashok Nagar, Kurnool - 518 005.                                                           

...Opposite ParTies

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri .S.SivaRamaKrishna Prasad, Advocate for complainant and Sri.L.Viswanadham, Advocate for opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.                                             

        ORDER

(As per Smt.S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)                                                             C.C. No.99/2012

1.     This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:-

1.   To direct the opposite parties to fix the pension of the complainant after completing all formalities:

1.   To award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony;

1.   To cost of the complaint;

1.   To grant such other relief or reliefs as Honourable Court fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the employee of Shri Mahalaxmi Oil Mills, Yemmiganur and he retired from his service on 31-07-2006 and his provident fund Account No.is AP/4066/85.  On 29-06-2009 the complainant received the provident fund amount of Rs.59,411/- from the opposite parties.  The complainant submitted an application along with form 10D and other documents, to opposite parties for getting monthly pension.  One G.M.Amaresh is the owner of the Industry and he lease out the Industry to T.K.Khaja Hussain.  The form 10D required signature of the employer  there were serious disputes between the real owner and lease them and a Civil Suit also filed by both parties.  Both the parties insisted the complainant to give evidence on their behalf.  As the complainant was not given evidence so the lease holder and original owner both were not attested the form 10D of the complainant.  As per the advice of opposite parties the complainant resubmitted the form under Para 72 (5) (d) of scheme, where the employer failed to attest the  form  the opposite party can take further action and got attested from the employer.  The opposite party No.1 sent the matter to opposite party No.2.  The complainant made oral request and at last issued legal notice dated 12-07-2012 to opposite parties.  But the opposite parties did not respond.  There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party No.1 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.2.  It is stated that the complainant bearing Provident Fund Account No.AP/4066/85 had preferred form 10D for sanction of monthly member pension under Employees pension scheme, 1995 without attestation of employer.  The claim was returned for the reasons to get attestation from the employer and three attested group photos are not submitted.  Further it was advised that in the event of any inability to send the claim through the employer he may resort to Para 72 (5) (d) of Employee Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.  The complainant again submitted it without attestation of employer the same was forwarded to opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 reported that the employer refused to sign on it, because he has personal conflicts with the complainant.  The claim has been processed basing on the attestation made by the A.O., Seed Testing Laboratory, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District, the P.P.O. was generated vide P.P.O.No.GR/CDP/4236 by fixing monthly member pension @ Rs.414/- per month from 01-07-2009.  The arrears from 01-07-2009 to 31-12-2012 to the tune of Rs.17,388/- are being released in the month of January, 2013.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

4.     On behalf of the complainant no document is marked. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 is filed.

5.     Complainant not filed written arguments and opposite parties filed written arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

1. To what relief?

7.      POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant is the employee of Shri Maha Laxmi Oil Mills, Yemmiganur.  He retired from his service and received Provident Fund Account No.AP/4066/85 of Rs.59,411/- on 29-06-2009. It is also admitted that the complainant submitted application form 10D and other documents for getting monthly pension.  The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party contended that the said claim form 10D requires signature of the employer of the complainant.  It was returned by the opposite party No.1 to get sign on it and three group photos are also submitted.  The complainant resubmitted the same under Para 72 (5) (d) of Employee Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, as the employer of the complainant refused to sing on the claim form due to personal conflicts between the employer and the complainant.  The opposite parties processed the claim basing on the attestation made by the A.O., Seed Testing Laboratory, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District.  The opposite parties sanctioned P.P.O.No.GR/CDP/4136 by fixing monthly pension Rs.414/- per month form 01-07-2009.  The arrears from 01-07-2009 to 31-12-2012 for the sum of Rs.17,388/- are being released in the month of January, 2013.  Ex.B1 is the photo copy of P.P.O., order dated 09-01-2013 along with payment slip.  It is further argued that there is fault on the part of employer of the complainant and, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

8.     As seen from Ex.B1 it is very clear that the opposite parties sanctioned monthly pension Rs.414/- per month under employees pension scheme, 1952 from 01-07-2009 and the arrears from 01-07-2009 to 31-12-2012 for the sum of Rs.17,388/- are being released on 09-01-2013.  We found there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. 

9.     In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30^th day of May, 2013.

Sd/-                                                                                      Sd/-      

LADY MEMBER                                                                           PRESIDENT (FAC)

      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nill            For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:- NILL

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of P.P.O.Order:GR/CDP/Pension/2013/2108

dated 09-01-2013 issued by Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional/Sub Regional Office, Kadapa,

AP – Guntur along with payment Slip.

Sd/-                                                                             Sd/-        

LADY MEMBER                                                                   PRESIDENT (FAC)       

    // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :