Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/282/2011

Y. Narasimhamurthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

T. Bhujanga Rao

18 Jun 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:01-08.2011

                                                                                                Date of Order:18-06-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                              Thursday, the 18^th day of June, 2015.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.282/2011

Between:-

Yalamanchali Narsimhamurthy, S/o late Venkanna,

Hindu, aged 83, years, residing at D. No.38-39-52,

104 area, Balaji Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension),   

    Sub-regional Office, Marripalem, N.A.D. Post,

    Visakhapatnam.

2.Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi.

                                                                                         …  Opposite Parties

                           

          This case coming on 15.06.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri T. Bhujanga Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri D. Ramesh,  Advocate for the Opposite Parties and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties directing them to pay an amount of Rs.6,447/- (Six thousand, four hundred and forty seven only) towards superannuation pension accrued with interest till realization of the Complainant and to stop the recovery of Rs.181/- per month, to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

 

2.       The case of the Complainant in brief is that he worked as Internal Auditor in a Super Bazar and that he retired from service on 30.06.1999  and that therefore, he is a pensioner vide pension payment order bearing No. M.P.P.O. No. 9874 and that the original pension per month was Rs.544/-, granted with effect from 30.06.1999 and that out of that total pension amount of Rs.544/- he is commuted a sum of Rs.181/- and therefore, the balance amount payable per month of Rs.363/-.   It is also his case that the Opposite Parties has not been paying them differential pension amount of Rs.1729/- upto 31.07.2008 although the 100 months period was completed. That he addressed a letter to the Opposite Parties on 8.8.2008 seeking for restoration of the commuted value of the monthly pension, for which the Opposite parties had issued a reply on 20.08.2008    where it was stated that the commuted portion of the pension cannot be restored during the life time of the pensioner as such the question of restoration of the commuted value of pension amount does not arise, but then nowhere it was mentioned to that effect in form 10 D.E.P.S.

 

3.       It is also his case that there-after, he approached the Opposite Parties  many a time, seeking for redressal of his grievance, but there was no proper response from the Opposite Parties  and  that thereby the Opposite Parties rendered deficiency in  service for him and as such, he issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party dated 12.03.2009,  therefore, he suffered a lot of mental agony due to that deficiency in service rendered for him by the Opposite Parties.   Hence, this complaint.

 

4.       The case of the Opposite Parties, as can be seen from the counter averments, is that there is no provision in the Employees’ Pension Scheme of the year, 1995 for restoration of the commuted value of the pension of a pensioner, and as such the Complainant herein is debarred to claim that restoration of the commuted value of his pension of Rs.181/- and that fact was informed to the Complainant through its correspondence and through reply given for the legal notice issued by him, as such, the complaint is debarred from claiming for restoration of the commuted portion of his pension and as such the question of rendering deficiency of service for the Complainant does not arise.  Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

 

5.       To prove the case on behalf of the Complainant, he filed his sworn  affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A10.   On the other hand, the Opposite Parties, they filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.B1.

 

 

6.       Ex.A1 is the office copy of letter payment of differential pension addressed by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party dated 08.08.2004.  Ex.A2 is the office copy of letter addressed by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party dated 04.09.2008.   Ex.A3 is the office copy of letter from the 1^st Opposite Party to the Bank of India regarding the Complainant’s pension dated 29.06.1999.   Ex.A4 is the office copy of reply letter from the 1^st Opposite Party to the Complainant dated 20.08.2008.    Ex.A5 is the office copy of reply letter from the 1^st Opposite Party to the Complainant.   Ex.A6 is the original Form-10 D (EPS).   Ex.A6 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to the 1^st Opposite Party dated 12.03.2009.  Ex.A7 is the photo copy of Acknowledgment from the 1^st Opposite Party.   Ex.A8 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to the Opposite Parties dated 16.06.2011.  Ex.A9 is the legal notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to the Opposite Parties dated 16.6.2011.   Ex.A10 is the office copy of letter addressed by the 1^st Opposite Party to the Complainant’s counsel dated 31.03.2009.

7.       Ex.B1 is the original order copy of CC No.294/2010 in issued by District Consumers Forum-II, Visakhapatnam dated 07.04.2010.

8.       Both parties filed their respective written arguments.

9.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

10.     Now the points that arise for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite  Parties and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

 

11.     The main contest of the Complainant is that he is entitled to claim for restoration of the commuted portion of his pension, soon after lapse of period of 100 months commencing from the date of his retirement.  Whereas the specific contest of the Opposite Parties is that there has been no provision whatsoever in the E.P. Scheme of 1995 for restoration of the commuted value of the pension of the pensioner.

 

12.     It is held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.4545/2013 in a case between R.K. Varma Vs Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Karnal, Haryana dealt with in detail rule-13 of the provisions of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and observed that in denying to restore the commuted pension the department has acted in accordance with the rule and hence there is no deficiency in service and dismissed the claim of the member concerned.   The said order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, ipso facto applies to the present case.

 

13.     As seen from record, it is evident that the Complainant  filed a similar complaint in CC 294/2009 against the Opposite Party before this Forum and the said complaint was dismissed on merits by the order dated 7.4.2010 i.e., vide Ex.B1.   The Complainant did not prefer any appeal against the said order and hence the said order his became final.   Therefore, we are of considered view, that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone without going to the merits of the case.

 

14.     The Opposite Parties had submitted that there is no provision in the E.P. Scheme of 1995 for restoration of the commuted value of the pension of a pensioner of 100 months from the date of his retirement.  There upon the Complainant could not submit any provision which mandates restoration of the commuted portion of the pension of the Complainant.   So, the Complainant’s claim for restoration of the committed value of his monthly pension is proved to be untenable.

 

15.     In the light of our discussion, in the aforesaid mention paragraph.  We have no hesitation we hold that the Complainant filed by the Complainant is not maintainable.   Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

16.     In the result, this Complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 18^th day of June, 2015.  

   Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

Male Member                   Lady Member                                          President

 

 

 

 

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	08.08.2004	Letter of Payment of differential pension addressed by the Complainant to the 1st OP	Office copy
Ex.A02	04.09.2008	Letter addressed by the Complainant to the 1st OP	Office copy
Ex.A03	29.06.1999	Letter from the 1st OP to the Bank of India regarding the Complainant’s pension	Office copy
Ex.A04	20.08.2008	Reply letter from the 1st OP to the Complainant	Office copy
Ex.A05		Form-10 D (EPS)	Original
Ex.A06	12.03.2009	Legal Notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to the 1st OP	Office copy
Ex.A07		Acknowledgment from the 1st OP	Photo copy
Ex.A08	16.06.2011	Legal notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to the Ops	Office copy
Ex.A09	16.06.2011	Legal  notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to the Ops	Office copy
Ex.A10	31.03.2009	Letter addressed by the OP to the complainant’s counsel	Office copy

For the Opposite Parties:-                                  

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.B01	07.04.2010	Order copy in CC No.294/10 issued by the District Consumers Forum-II, VSP	Original

Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

Male Member                     Lady Member                                    President