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.106/2010
(Admitted on 27.03.2010)
Smt. Jainabu,
Do. Abdul Khadar,
Wo. Abdullah,
Aed about 58 years,
R/A. Vogga House and Post,
Kadabettu 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 in Southern India Works Limited and she was retired from service on 01.08.2005. She has Employees Provident Fund Account No.KNMNG/12100/B/771. It is stated that, the Complainant’s correct date of birth as per the National Social Security Number (NSSN) card is 07.04.1952. The Complainant has submitted the application for grant of pension, the Opposite Party rejected the application on the ground that, the Complainant has to submit the claim in form No.10(D). But thereafter it is informed by the Opposite Party that Complainant’s date of birth has been recorded as 01.09.1962 in the Opposite Parties’ office records. Therefore the request of the Complainant cannot be considered. The Complainant has requested the Opposite Party by providing necessary documents proof to consider the correct date of birth. 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 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., 07.04.1952 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 is No.KNMNG/12100/B/771. The Complainant was issued scheme certificate and in the said scheme certificate her date of birth was shown as 01.09.1962. Hence she is not entitled for any benefit 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.Jainabu (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on her. Ex C1 to C4 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 to R4 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):
The Complainant was doing beedi rolling work and a member of Employees Provident Fund, holding Provident Fund account No.KNMNG/12100/B/771. It is also not in dispute that, the Complainant retired from the service on 01.08.2005.
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 01.08.2005 and after the retirement, submitted an application for grant of pension and the same is rejected on the ground that the date of birth in the scheme certificate and other relevant records was shown as 01.09.1962 i.e., the date of birth of the Complainant and hence her application was rejected. It is contended that, the Complainant is a villager and her date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the scheme certificate as 01.09.1962. But as per National Social Security Number (herein after called ‘NSSN’) her correct date of birth is 07.04.1952. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party by providing necessary document proof to consider her date of birth i.e., 07.4.1952 and to grant pension and other benefits is not considered by the Opposite Party, hence this complaint.
On the contrary, the Opposite Party contended that, the Opposite Party had issued a scheme certificate and in scheme certificate her date of birth was shown as 1.9.1962 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.
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 01.08.2005. The correct date of birth of the Complainant as per the NSSN issued by the Opposite Party is 07.4.1952. Despite of requesting the Opposite Party to consider the date of birth mentioned in NSSN Card issued by the Opposite Party was rejected. In order to substantiate her claim, the Complainant produced Ex C1 to C4. On scrutiny of the documents produced by the Complainant i.e., Ex C3 the original NSSN card, wherein, her date of birth shown as 07.04.1952. Further, we have perused 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.
In the instant case, the Complainant is not disputing the date of birth mentioned in NSSN card issued by the Opposite Party. When that being the case, the Opposite Party should have entertained the claim of the Complainant by considering the original NSSN card atleast after filing this complaint. Non-considering the claim of the Complainant in this case amounts to deficiency in service.
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 Form No.9 or any records submitted by the employer without there being any age proof cannot be considered or by relying on such records one cannot reject the genuine claim of the member herein the Complainant. However, the Complainant produced the NSSN card issued by the Opposite Party, wherein her date of birth shown as 07.04.1952, which requires no further proof.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Opposite Party ought to have considered the claim of the Complainant by considering the age mentioned in the NSSN card issued by the Opposite Party. In this case, the Opposite Party failed to consider the claim of the Complainant which amounts to deficiency as stated supra. 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., 07.04.1952. 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., 07.04.1952. And further direct the Opposite Party 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.Jainabu – 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 – : Original NSSN Card.
Ex C4 – 31.03.2010: Reply of the Opposite Party.
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 – 23.08.2001: Copy of nomination and declaration form.
Ex R2 – 22.09.2006: Copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant.
Ex R3 – 07.02.2007: Legal notice issued to the Opposite Party.
Ex R4 – 07.09.2010: Letter of the Opposite Party to the Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Legal cell.
Dated:15.10.2010 PRESIDENT
