DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 107 of 25-04-2007<br /> Decided on : 16-07-2007 <br /> <br /> Smt Basant Kaur aged 60 years widow of Bharpur Singh @ Bhura Singh, R/o Village Hamirpur Kalan, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus <br /> <br /> 1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) Sub Regional Office, 2740-B, Opposite Zila Parishad, Goniana Road, Bathinda.<br /> 2.Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, 8th & 9th Floors, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001, through its Regional Commissioner/Authorised Officer.<br /> 3.Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 28 Bhavishaya Nidhi Bhawan, Wazidpur Industrial Area, Delhi 52. <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer<br /> Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. K.K. Vinocha, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Bansi Lal Sachdeva Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Baljit Singh was the only male issue of the complainant. He has since died on 21.3.02 in an accident which took place while he was working as driver out of and in the course of employment with V.R.C. Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd., on its contract work in the premises of Guru Gobind Singh Refinery Limited, Bathinda (i.e. Village Phullo Khari Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda). He was subscriber of the opposite parties having Code No. & A/c No. DL/18041/169 through his employer i.e. VRC. Father of deceased Baljit Singh namely Bharpur Singh @ Bhura also died after his death. Complainant being his mother and only dependent is to get E.P.F. Nominee Pension. She got relevant Forms from Bathinda office of the opposite parties. After completing all the requirements as suggested by opposite parties, they were submitted to them at their office at Bathinda on 21.8.06 which sent it to its New Delhi Office. After completing requisite formalities, opposite parties No. 2 & 3 granted E.P.F. Pension favouring complainant vide its letter No. DL/18041/169/Pension Cell CPM/26243594/173 dated 26.10.06. She was intimated that pension application and other documents have been sent to opposite party No. 1 since the drawl of pension falls under its jurisdiction. She was held entitled to get pension we.f. 22.3.02. On receiving the letter dated 26.10.06, she went to the office of opposite party No. 1 many a times, but matter was kept pending on one pretext or the other. Feeling aggrieved from the act and conduct of the officials of opposite party No. 1, she through her counsel got issued legal notice dated 12.1.07 delivered by hand on 15.1.07, but in vain. Rather the officials of opposite party No. 1, to save their skin raised un-necessary objections with regard to non disclosure of age/date of birth of deceased Baljit Singh although School leaving certificate was earlier submitted. In this regard opposite party No. 1 had sent letter dated 15.1.07 to opposite party No. 2 vide which objection was raised that Delhi office did not write date of birth of the deceased. Another letter dated 24.1.07 was addressed to her counsel. On receipt of the above mentioned letter, she sent registered A.D.post letter dated 3.2.07 to Delhi Office and also gave its copy by hand in Bathinda Office again submitting duly attested date of birth certificate of deceased Baljeet Singh containing his date of birth as 20.02.1970. Despite this, pension and its arrears were not paid. Vide letter dated 14.2.07, opposite party No. 1 raised another objection that her age has not been shown by Delhi Office although it was duly mentioned as 59 years in the forms which were filled in by her. Vide letter dated 21.3.07 addressed to Delhi office and copy to her, opposite party No. 1 again raised the same objection. She asserts that she is not at fault. She is widow, weak, infirm and aged. She alleges that she is being harassed by the opposite parties by withholding the pension amount illegally and wrongfully on account of which she is entitled to claim it alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from 22.3.02 till arrears are paid. Apart from this, she is also entitled to Rs. 25,000/- as compensation/damages which includes actual expenses spent while visiting office of opposite party No. 1 number of times at Bathinda, representing opposite parties time and again and also causing mental tension, botheration and agony. Till date, she has been paid Rs. 750/- approximately which included pension around Rs. 500/- per month and Rs. 250/- towards refundable contribution as told orally by the officials of opposite party No. 1. Opposite parties are deficient in providing service. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by her seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to pay her arrears of pension with interest as mentioned above from the date they became due till actual payment, regular monthly pension under EPF scheme applicable from time to time and Rs. 25,000/- as damages/compensation besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that payment of pension has already been released w.e.f. 22-3-02 and pension dispute is not consumer dispute. They admit that Provident Fund Account Number was allotted to deceased Baljit Singh. Complainant had submitted pension papers. Opposite party No. 1 had sent them to P.F. Office Delhi vide letter dated 25.8.06. They deny that pension papers were submitted after completing all the requirements. Proof of date of birth of the deceased was not submitted alongwith pension case. Certificate regarding date of birth was submitted in the month of February, 2007. Thereafter pension was released. Time consumed in releasing pension is due to procedural formalities. They deny that proof regarding date of birth was submitted prior to February, 2007. Delay, if any, has taken place due to non-submission of proof of date of birth of the deceased. Hence question of botheration, mental tension and agony does not arise. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence her affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-2), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. C-3), photocopy of cheque dated 1.6.07 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of letter dated 17.5.07 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of letter dated 14.8.06 (Ex. C-6), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-7), photocopy of letter dated 12.9.06 (Ex. C-8), photocopy of letter dated 25.8.06 (Ex. C-9), photocopy of letter dated 26.10.06 (Ex. C-10), photocopy of letter dated 15.1.07 (Ex. C-11), photocopy of letter dated 24.1.07 (Ex. C-12), photocopy of legal notice dated 12.1.07 (Ex. C-13). Photocopy of letter dated 3.2.07 (Ex. C-14), photocopy of school leaving certificate (Ex. C-15), and photocopies of two more letters (Ex. C-16 & Ex. C-17).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Ran Singh, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) (Ex. R-1), photocopy of letter dated 11941 (Ex. R-2), photocopy of reply of legal notice (Ex. R-3), photocopy of registered letter receipt (Ex. R-4), photocopy of school leaving certificate (Ex. R-5), photocopy of application for monthly pension (Ex. R-6), photocopy of Register Form XIII (Ex. R-7) and photocopy of letter dated 2.4.07 (Ex. R-8) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.<br /> 6. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that Baljit Singh was working as driver with V.R.C Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd., He was subscriber of EPF having Code No. & A/c No. DL/18041/169 through his employer. He has since died in the course of his employment. Complainant had submitted pension papers to the office of opposite party No. 1 which had sent it to the Provident Fund Office Delhi vide letter dated 25.8.06, copy of which is Ex. C-9. Vide letter dated 26.10.06, copy of which is Ex. C-10, opposite party No. 2 intimated opposite party No. 1 to issue Pension Payment Order. Opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 15.1.07, copy of which is Ex. C-11 intimated opposite party No. 2 that date of birth of Baljit Singh has not been given and that this mistake be rectified. Copy of the letter was also sent to the complainant. Opposite party No. 1 sent letter to the counsel of the complainant on 24.1.07, copy of which is Ex. C-12. Complainant vide her letter dated 3.2.07, copy of which is Ex. C-14 intimated the date of birth of Baljit Singh as 20-02-1970. School leaving Certificate was also attached with it. Opposite party No. 1 sent letter dated 14.2.07 to the complainant making enquiry about her age and disclosing the same to Delhi Office. Another letter dated 21.3.07 was issued by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 3 intimating that neither date of birth certificate of deceased Baljet Singh nor age proof certificate has been attached with the claim. Pension claim was again returned. During the pendency of this complaint, on 5.6.07 cheque for Rs. 51,460/- was offered by the opposite parties. It was accepted by the counsel for the complainant on behalf of the complainant under protest without prejudice to the rights of the complainant.<br /> 7. Arguments on the legal aspect pressed into service by Mr. Sachdeva, learned counsel for the opposite parties are that complainant is not consumer qua the claim under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 (Here-in-after referred to as EPS 1995) as no consideration in the form of administrative charges is paid. For this, he made reference to para No. 30 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 (Here-in-after referred to as EPF Scheme 1952) according to which administrative charges are paid to the opposite parties but the contribution towards EPS is made as per Section 6-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and para No. 3 of EPS 1995. He further argued that claim qua Employee Pension Scheme cannot be allowed under the Act of 1986 as pension dispute is not a consumer dispute.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant countered this argument by submitting that the Commissioners are exercising statutory services. They are required to invest contributions to the provident fund like any banker of financial institution and to credit interest to the subscribers account. All this is rendering of service by them for consideration as defined in the Act. <br /> 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. Question regarding pension and other service benefits payable under the scheme framed by the Government was considered by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Jagdish Kumar Bajapi Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Health, Welfare and General Heath Services 2006 CTJ-7 (CP)(NCDRC). In that case Hon'ble National Commission on the basis of the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 and State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985)1 SCC -429 held that it is clear that pension scheme varies from time to time in the Society. Pension is paid according to rules and it provides social security law alongwith benefits in kind such as free medical aid in a Democratic Welfare State. This is a necessity for survival of retired employees. Hence, pension including other service benefits payable under the scheme framed by a Government is a valuable right vesting in a retired Government employee. It is part of wages and in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and the purpose of helping the recipient to meet the expenses of living. It is not bounty but is an obligation of a welfare society and that too it is in accordance with the constitutional goal. Under the law, consideration can be in cash or kind. The definition of the word 'consumer' under Section 2(1(d)(ii) provides that a person would inter-alia be a consumer if he hires or avails of the services for consideration paid (paid in past or agreed to be paid in future including deferred payment). In consideration of services rendered to the Government till the age of superannuation, a right is conferred upon an employee to get pension as well as other benefits including medical treatment prescribed by various rules or the schemes framed by the Government. It cannot be held that it is a free service. Such employee would be a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Apart from this, matter regarding the facts of the case in hand had cropped upon before Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Faribabad Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi 1996 LLR 641 in which it was held that perusal of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme of 1952 shows that the Commissioners constituted under the Act and 1952 Scheme extend out service within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(o) of the Act to the subscriber for consideration. Para No. 5 of the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission is reproduced as under :-<br /> “5. On perusal of the above statutory provisions of the said Act and the 1952 Scheme it shows that the Commissions constituted under the said Act and the 1952 Scheme extend out service within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act to the subscriber for consideration. The administration charges are levied and recoverable by the Commissioner for payment of the services rendered by the Commissioners and the ancillary staff. A duty is also cast for the investment of moneys belong to the Employees Provident Fund just as any banker or financial institutions under the control of Central Government does to earn interest. The Commissioner is also required to credit to the account of each member interest at such rate as may be determined by the Central Government in relation with the Central Board. The Delhi State Commission in Kamlesh Vohra Vs. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. 1(1993) CPJ 232 came to the conclusion that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner comes clearly within the ambit of the consumer jurisdiction and further the delay in settling the claim was contrary not only to the spirit of the said Act and the 1952 Scheme but equally to the express instructions of the Commissioners themselves. We are unable to accept the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner herein that the Commissioners are exercising statutory power and discharging statutory functions under the said Act and the 1952 Scheme and therefore they could not come within the ambit of services as defined under the Act. In Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, the Supreme Court held that the statutory Authority such as Lucknow Development Authority or Delhi Development Authority or Bangalore Development Authority constituted under States Act to carry on planned development of city in the State are amenable to jurisdiction under and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for any act or omission relating to housing activity such as delay in the stipulated time or defective and faulty construction. The Commissioners under the said Act given statutory service on payment of administration charges and they are required to invest the contributions to the Provident Fund like any banker or financing institution and to credit interest to the subscribers account. It is rendering of service for consideration as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.”<br /> In this view of the matter, we also get support from the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi AIR2000 Supreme Court 331 and Kishore Lal Vs. Chairman Employee State Insurance Corporation 2007 CTJ 557 Supreme Court (CP). Accordingly, we hold that complainant is consumer even qua the Employee Pension Scheme.<br /> 10. Next material question which requires determination is as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that since payment of the pension and its arrears has been made during the pendency of the complaint, so, now dispute remains with respect to interest, compensation and cost only. He further argued that Baljit Singh had died on 21.3.02. Fact of his death was brought to notice of the opposite parties. Complainant had applied for pension on 14.8.06 by way of moving application to opposite party No. 1, copy of which is Ex. C-6. Objections raised by opposite party No. 1 through letter dated 5.9.06, copy of which is Ex. C-7were removed by way of writing letter by the complainant on 12.9.06, copy of which is Ex. C-8. Ultimately pension was sanctioned by Delhi Office vide letter dated 26.10.06, copy of which is Ex. C-10. Thereafter complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties as various objections were raised. Accordingly, complainant is entitled to interest on the arrears of pension @18% P.A. from 22.3.02 till 5.6.07, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation besides cost.<br /> 11. Mr. Sachdeva, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehementally argued that proof of date of birth of Baljit Singh, deceased was not submitted alongwith pension case. Birth Certificate of the deceased was submitted during the month of February, 2007. Even the age of the complainant was not known. Since complainant did not complete the formalities in time, she is at fault. This caused delay in releasing the pension. Pension amount has already been paid to the complainant w.e.f. 22.3.02. Age of the deceased was intimated by the employer vide letter dated 4.2.07, copy of which is Ex. R-8.<br /> 12. Respective arguments have been considered by us. Complainant had moved opposite party No. 1 by way of submitting application dated 14.8.06 for getting pension, arrears and other benefits with eligible interest. After the objections raised were met by her, pension was allowed by opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 26.10.06 addressed to opposite party No. 1 with the direction to issue Pension Payment Order. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 started raising objections at his own level as is evident from Ex. C-11 which is the copy of the letter dated 15.1.07 vide which date of Birth of the deceased was sought. Learned counsel for the opposite parties failed to show us that after the pension was sanctioned by competent authority, date of birth of the deceased was essential in the pension scheme. Moreover, industrial workers are often uneducated having no exact date of birth available with them. Application form copy of which is Ex. R-6 reveals that approximate age of the deceased as 30 years was already conveyed. In this document there is one column of date of birth/age. From this, it is clear that if exact date of birth is not available the approximate age could be written. In other words, exact date of birth is not needed. Complainant gave reply of letters copies of which are Ex. C-11 & Ex. C-12 vide letter dated 3.2.07 copy of which is Ex. C-14 alongwith which copy of school leaving certificate of Baljit Singh was sent revealing his date of birth as 20/02/1970. Again, opposite party No. 1 sought age of the complainant although it was already recorded in the application form as 59 years as is clear from Ex. R-6. Opposite parties caused delay in making payment of the arrears of pension after 26.10.06 without any solid and lawful objections. Hence, there is deficiency in rendering service on their part. Pension Payment Order could be easily issued immediately after 26.10.06 but it was not issued nor arrears were paid till 5.6.07.<br /> 13. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant in the given situation. Pension has already been sanctioned to the complainant. Arrears of the pension to the tune of Rs. 51,460/- have been paid to the complainant through cheque No. 333952 dated 1.6.07 on 5.6.07. In these circumstances, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to pay interest to the complainant on the amount of arrears of pension from 26.10.06 onwards which became due from time to time till 4.6.07 @ 9% P.A. Complainant is craving for compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. There is no case to allow it in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above. Out of interest and compensation, one can be allowed.<br /> 14. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 15. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :<br /> i) Pay interest to the complainant on the amount of arrears of the pension from 26.10.06 onwards which became due from time to time till 4.6.07 @ 9% P.A. <br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 16-07-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> ( Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />