BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 15th of October 2010
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.107/2010
(Admitted on 27.03.2010)
Smt. Baby,
Do. Ananda Sapalya,
Wo. P. Sanjeeva,
Aged about 54 years,
RA. 5 97, Janatha Griha,
Narikombu Village, Bantwal Taluk. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.Naveen Banninthaya P.R.)
VERSUS
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Office of the Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Sub-Regional Office,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan,
P.B. No.572, Silva Road,
Hilghlands, Mangalore – 2. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri.J.Ravindra Naik).
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that, she was a beedi roller as per Employees Provident Fund Account No.KN/6466/907. It is stated that, the Complainant’s correct date of birth as per the National Social Security Number (NSSN) card is 01.12.1955. The Complainant has submitted the application for grant of reduced pension and the same is rejected on the ground that, the Complainant has not attained the age of 50 years as on that date, as her date of birth in scheme certificate is entered as 01.12.1962. The Complainant resubmitted form No.7(D) along with copy of the NSSN card and represented before the Opposite Party to consider the correct date of birth and to grant pension and other benefits. Inspite of request made by the Complainant, the Opposite Party has failed to comply the same. Finally, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 09.02.2010 calling upon the Opposite Party to pay the pension and other benefits but the Opposite Party failed to comply the demand made therein. Hence the above complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay Pension amount and all other benefits to the Complainant as per the correct date of birth i.e., 01.12.1955 and also claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version admitted the Provident Fund Account number issued by the Opposite Party as per is No.KN/6466/907. It is stated that, the Complainant left service on 31.03.2006 and applied for settlement of Provident Fund account by submitting Form No.19 and 10D on 22.06.2006, Form No.10D was returned to her asking clarification regarding the discrepancy in the date of birth advising her to resubmit the form No.10D vide office letter dated 26.3.2007 requested to submit authentic proof but the Complainant not submitted any proof and hence she is not entitled for any claim and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Smt.Baby (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on her. Ex C1 to C3 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.H.Chandrakanth Gadiyar (RW1), Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner of the Employees Provident Fund Organization filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 and R2 were marked for the Opposite Party as listed in the annexure. The Complainant produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, it is admitted that, the Complainant was doing beedi rolling work and a member of Employees Provident Fund, holding Provident Fund account No.KN/6466/907.
Now the point in dispute between the parties are that, the Complainant contended that, she was working as a beedi roller and retired from service on 31.03.2006. The Complainant has submitted the application for grant of reduced pension and the same was rejected on the ground that the Complainant has not attained the age of 50 years as on that date, as her date of birth in the scheme certificate is entered as 01.12.1962. The Complainant resubmitted form No.7(D) along with Xerox copy of the National Social Security Number (herein after called ‘NSSN’) and represented before the Opposite Party to consider the correct date of birth. It is stated that, as per the NSSN card issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization her date of birth was shown as 01.12.1955. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party to consider the above date of birth mentioned in NSSN card. But the Opposite Party rejected the same, hence she came up with this complaint.
On the contrary, the Opposite Party contended that, the Complainant has not been issued any scheme certificate taking the age as 01.12.1962 and hence she is not entitled for the pension.
From the outset of the records available on the file of this Forum, we find that, as per the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995, the employee entitled for pension after attaining the age of 58 years. But in the instant case, because of the dispute regarding the date of birth of the Complainant, the payment of the pension was rejected by the Opposite Party.
The Complainant filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination stated that, she was working as a beedi roller and retired from the service on 31.03.2006. The correct date of birth of the Complainant as per the NSSN card issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization is 01.12.1955. Despite of requesting the Opposite Party to consider the above age proof, the Opposite Party rejected the claim of the Complainant. In order to substantiate her case, produced Ex C1 to C3. On scrutiny of the documents produced by the Complainant the circular dated 12.12.2006 issued by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India) to all the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners, all officers in-charge of SROs to issue a comprehensive guideline, wherein it is stated that, a member who has been issued with a social security number, disputes the date of birth, the same can be entertained by a valid documentary proof such as certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, any school/education related certificate, certificate based on the service records of the Central/State Government Organization. And further, the one more circular dated 27.07.2007 issued by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour, Government of India), wherein, it has been clearly stated that, the request for change of date of birth can be preferred any time when the wrong date of birth comes to the notice of the employee/employer. Similarly, the Complainant produced the NSSN card issued by the Opposite Party i.e., Employees Provident Fund Organization i.e., Central Provident Fund Commissioner, wherein, her date of birth was shown as 1.12.1955. When that being the case, the Opposite Party cannot overlook the document issued by them. The Opposite Party ought to have settled the claim by considering the NSSN card issued by them.
We further noticed that, the Complainant is a beedi roller, to do the beedi rolling work no qualification or age is required. Under that circumstances, the age mentioned in the scheme certificate or any other records obtained by the employer without there being any age proof cannot be considered and one cannot reject the genuine claim of the member herein the Complainant. The NSSN card issued by the Opposite Party, wherein, her date of birth shown as 1.12.1955. Despite of issuing NSSN card at the earliest point of time and later disputing the date of birth is not correct, which amounts to deficiency in service.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that, the Opposite Party ought to have considered the claim of the Complainant atleast after accepting the NSSN Card. In this case, the Opposite Party failed to consider the claim of the Complainant which amounts to deficiency. Therefore, we direct the Opposite Party to pay the pension amount and all other benefits to the Complainant by considering the date of birth i.e., 01.12.1955. And further we direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards the harassment and personal inconvenience caused to the Complainant and Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay the pension amount and all other benefits to the Complainant by considering the date of birth i.e., 01.12.1955. And further to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
On failure to pay the aforementioned amount within the stipulated time as mentioned above the Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of October 2010.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Smt.Baby – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 09.02.2010: Copy of the Lawyer’s notice issued to the Opposite Party.
Ex C2 – : Postal acknowledgement.
Ex C3 – : Copy of the NSSN Card.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Sri.H.Chandrakanth Gadiyar, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner of the Employees Provident Fund Organization.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex R1 – 06.03.1997: Copy of nomination and declaration form.
Ex R2 – 26.03.2007: Copy of the letter sent to the Complainant by the Opposite Party.
Dated:15.10.2010 PRESIDENT
