BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Senior Citizen, Mr. Om Parkash Chugh s/o Sh. V.R. Chugh, #1080, Sector 18C, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                            V E R S U S

1.  The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (o/o Employee’s Provident Fund Organization), Regional Provident Fund Office-SCO No.4 to 7, Sector 17D, Chandigarh.

2.  The General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Punjab, Bay No.34 to 38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh.

3.  The Assistant General Manager (C.P.F), Food Corporation of India, A-2, B-2; Zonal Office (North) – Sector 24, Noida (U.P.)

4.  Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, through APFC; Regional Office-Noida, #A-2C, Sector 24, Noida (U.P).

                                   ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL             PRESIDENT

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL         MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. M.G. Sharma, authorized rep. of complainant.

Sh. Raj Kumar Syal, Adv. for OPs 1 & 4

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv. for OPs 2 & 3.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant while he was in service became a member of the Employees Pension Scheme-1995  launched under the Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. He retired from the Food Corporation of India (OP-2) after attaining the age of superannuation and became eligible for monthly pension  under the  scheme effective from 20.9.2006.   He submitted the mandatory form 10D on 4.8.2007 alongwith all the relevant papers  to OP-2 for fixation of monthly pension, which was forwarded by them to OP-3 vide letter dated 10.8.2007 but still the monthly pension was not fixed despite reminders dated 11.2.2009, 17.8.2009 as well as notice dated 24.1.2010. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.        In their written reply the OPs 1 & 4 admitted the factual matrix.  However, it has been submitted that on receipt of pension papers from OP-3 on 12.10.2009 the same were processed by OP-4 and were sent to OP-1 on 16.4.2010 who immediately issued the pension payment order (PPO) in favour of the complainant on 27.4.2010 for disbursement of monthly pension through State Bank of India, Sector 34, Chandigarh as desired by him and hence there was no delay on their part. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 
3.        OPs 2 & 3 in their separate written reply  also admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It has been stated that the complainant submitted form 10-D for fixation of his monthly pension  in August 2007 which was forwarded to OP-3 vide letter dated 10.8.2007 who forwarded the same to OP-4 on 7.7.2008 but the same were returned to OP-2 vide letter dated 10.9.2009.  OP-3 after completing all the formalities forwarded the same to the OP-4 vide letter dated 12.10.2009 and thereafter nothing was heard.  It has been submitted that the delay, if any, was on the part of the complainant as he himself submitted the papers on 4.8.2007 i.e. after a period of about one year, and OPs 1 & 4 as they returned the papers with frivolous objections. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 
4.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.        We have heard the authorized representative of the complainant, ld. counsel for the parties and have also perused the record including the written arguments. 
6.        It is admitted that the pension case of the complainant was forwarded to OP-3 vide letter dated 7/10.8.2007 (Annexure P-5).  It remained pending with the OP-3 for about 11 months when he woke up  and sent it to  OP-4 on 7.7.2008 vide Annexure R-2.  Now it was the turn of OP-4 to keep sitting over the papers for 14 months till the same were sent back on 10.9.2009 vide Annexure R-3 but these were returned in a month to OP-4 on 12.10.2009 vide Annexure R-4.  Thereafter again OP-4 kept the papers for about 5 months till the pension was released to the complainant.  The ld. counsel for OPs 2 & 3 has argued that the delay of 11 months on the part of OP-3 was due to the reason that OPs 1 & 4 stopped accepting the pension papers of the employees on the ground that there was  rush with them and they were unable to deal with the cases.  Annexure R-6 is the letter dated 3.12.2009 showing that OPs 1 & 4 had stopped accepting the cases upon which OPs 2 & 3 held a meeting with them and persuaded them to accept at least 15 pension cases per day so that about 3000 pension claims pending with OPs 2 & 3 are forwarded to them.  Annexure R-5 is the letter dated 10/11.3.2010 when again OPs 1 & 4 refused to accept the cases on the ground that they would accept only 20 cases on alternate days.  OPs 2 & 3 were wondering how 2500 cases would be disposed of with such a small number of cases being accepted by OPs 1 & 4.  The OPs have produced the peon book dated 7.1.2009, 23.4.2009 and 9.6.2009 vide which pension cases were sent to the office of OPs 1 & 4 but they refused to accept the pension papers sent to them.  It is, therefore, clear that OP-4 is the real culprit in delaying the disposal of pension cases of the employees.
7.        OPs 2 & 3 have been requesting OP-4 to depute adequate number of staff to process the cases of the employees to avoid unrest among them which would also decrease the number of court cases but it all went on deaf ears of OP-4. OP-4 took 19 months to dispose of the case even after the pension papers were accepted by them.  During this period they did not bother about the miseries of the poor employee who after retirement was  not getting any salary and the hope for getting pension was being dashed by OP-4.  They did not even consider that it may have been the only source of income for the complainant to maintain his family and in its absence the complainant may be suffering mentally and physically.  In a similar case titled as Kashmir Singh Vs. Deputy General Manager (CPF) (complaint case No.84 of 2008) decided by this Forum on 24.4.2008, the OP-4 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service alongwith litigation costs. When OPs went in appeal (Appeal case No.926/2008) the same was dismissed on 3.7.2008 by the Hon'ble State Commission.  It was observed by the Hon'ble State Commission that certainly delay in releasing pension would have caused much pain and suffering for which the District Consumer Forum had rightly granted Rs.50,000/- In fact to our mind it is on lower side but since no appeal has been filed by the respondent (complainant), we do not enhance the compensation.  In this manner, we are of the opinion that in the present case also OP-4 should pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,500/-. 
8.        We accordingly order that the above said amount shall be paid by OP-4 to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which they would be liable to pay the entire amount alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 10.3.2010 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.  The complaint against OPs 1 to 3 is dismissed with no order as to costs
9.        In order to safeguard the interest of the organization, it is ordered that the above said  amount alongwith interest and costs, if any, may be recovered from the salary of the officer(s)/official(s) due to whose inaction the matter was delayed, of course after giving notice to the concerned employee(s) as required under the relevant service rules. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.