BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

                                                             Dated this the 15^th March 2017

PRESENT

   SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI                 : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.16/2017

(Admitted on 19.01.2017)

Mr. Cyprian Nazareth,

C.No.5.12/20 Nazareth Nest,

Badla Gudda Padil Post,

Mangalore  575007.

                                                   ….. COMPLAINANT 

(Advocate for the Complainant: Smt. LCH)

VERSUS

1. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension)

    EPF Organization, Regional Office,

    Silva Road, Highlands,

    Mangalore  575 002.

                                                          …..........OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri JRN)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

     The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     This is a case that the complainant is an Ex employee of KSRTC, Mangalore seeks re-fixation of his pension under para 10(2) interest on arrears under para 17A and following proceed in re fixing pension under para 12 (3.5) (a) and 12 (3.5) (b) of the scheme of Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  In view of the observation made by the Civil Appeal No. 30844/2010 subsequently claims attaining the age of 58 years in October 2014.   Hence claims relief including under Para 32 of the Pension Scheme of 1995. 

II.     Opposite party in the version claimed that the pension of complainant was revised from Rs.2,143/ to Rs.2,290/  and arrears of pension of Rs.4,072 was paid on 31.1.2017.   He also claims there is no such minimum assured pension in past and present service in para 12 of the scheme of 1995.   Under para 32 is at all declared by the Central Government and as no such benefits declared the question of admission to need such benefit does not arise.  Hence seeks the dismissal of the complaint.

2.     Parties not attended any evidence.

III.    In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

       We have considered entire case file on record.  Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:

               Point No.  (i): Affirmative

              Point No.  (ii): Partly Affirmative

              Point No. (iii): As per the final order

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):   That the complainant is a consumer has been served by opposite party towards his pension and that the claims made by complainant under various paras though it is admitted and other is disputed by the parties.  Hence there is live dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act.   Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINTS No. (ii):   In this case as can be seen from the complaint even though opposite party had re-fixed the pension it was not paid on 31.1.2017 but released only on 2.3.2017 as stated by learned counsel for complainant in the memo date 10.3.2017 the copy of the bank pass extract produced by complainant makes it clear that deposit made only on 2.3.2017 of pension and arrears.  Hence it is clear that the arrears was paid only after opposite party entered appearance and filed version on 22.2.2017 and not prior to filing of the complaint.  Further as seen from the details of the refixed pension even though original pension of Rs.2,143/- was fixed and it does not mention the date on which the order passed by opposite party.  Hence as pointed out for complainant the complainant is entitled for interest at 12% from the date arrears became due and also claims under scheme of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 para 17A.   In respect of para 32 is concerned there is claim of opposite party that there is no declaration made by the Central Government which can be done.  Hence the question of refixing and benefit under para 32 does not arise.  Hence we answer Point No.2 partly affirmative.

POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following

ORDER

     The complaint is partly allowed with cost.  Opposite party is directed to pay interest under para 17A of the scheme of 1995 to complainant. 

2.       Advocate fee fixed at Rs.2000/(Rupees Two thousand only).

3.  The above amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt  of copy of this order.

     Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 5 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 15^th March 2017)

              MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT

      (LAVANYA M. RAI)                           (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

  D.K. District Consumer Forum                  D.K. District Consumer Forum

             Mangalore.                                               Mangalore.

ANNEXURE 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Nil 

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Nil 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1  Nil  

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Dated: 15.3.2017                                          PRESIDENT