Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/39/2017

P.Chinnaiah, S/o Venkataiah, aged 75 years, - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

A.Devendranath

11 Jul 2018

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                                                                                Filing Date: 17-08-2017                                                                                                                                                                                      Order Date:  11-07-2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present:-  Sri. T.Anand, President (FAC)

                                                                                               Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

WEDNESDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

C.C.No.39/2017

Between

P. Chinaiah, S/o. Venkataiah,

Hindu, aged about 75 years,

Retd. Employee, residing at Kalikiri Village,

Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District,

(Aadhaar No. 919710197838, Mobile No. 9885320208).         … Complainant

 

And

1. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner,

O/o. Provident Fund Office,

Railway Station Road, KADAPA,

YSR Kadapa District.

 

2. Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Rep. by its authorized Signatory,

O/o. District Provident Fund Office,

Room No. 11, 2^nd Floor, Sridevi Complex,

Tilak Road, Tirupati – 517 501.                                     … Opposite parties

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 27.06.2018 and upon perusing the complaint, chief affidavit, written version, written arguments of the complainant and opposite party and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of  Sri. A.Devendranath and A.Krishnamurthy counsels for the complainant and Sri. M. Balakrishnama Naidu, counsel for the opposite party 1 and 2 having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT(FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, with following averments:- The complainant is retired Chittoor Co-Operative Sugar Limited employee and joined as member of Provident Fund Scheme Vide A/c No. AP/2341/1048 and retired from service subsequently and drawing pension Vide PPO No. AP/CDP/7643.During his service he availed loan on pension from opposite parties on 29.12.2000 for a sum of Rs.24,200/- agreeing to deduct the loan amount in 100 EMIs @ Rs.242/-. Accordingly opposite parties have deducted the said amount from his monthly pension amount. Though EMIs were already completed the deduction did not stop. On several occasions he approached the opposite parties and requested to stop deductions as the loan is discharged and to refund the excess amount deducted from the pension of the complainant. But the opposite parties did not take any action due to which the complainant is suffering a lot both mentally and physically. It is bounden duty of opposite parties to verify the deductions and to stop deductions. The complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties dt: 06.04.2017 asking them to refund the excess amount deducted from the pension amount with interest and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service. Having received the notice, the opposite parties failed to comply the same. Hence the complainant was constrained to approach this Forum seeking redressal.

        2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared and contest the matter by filing common written version. It is submitted that, as per the provisions of Manual of Accounting procedure laid down under Employee’s Pension Scheme 1995, “Every member pensioner is eligible to commute a portion of pension not exceeding one third of his original monthly pension for a lump sum one-time payment, i.e., commuted value of pension. On commuted value of pension a member shall receive hundred times of pension, so commuted as commuted value of pension. The balance of pension i.e., original pension less commuted pension shall be paid on monthly basis”. The complainant exercised the option under the scheme and submitted the claim form 10D for member pension. Basing on the option an amount of Rs.24,200/- was released as Commuted Value of Pension. It is therefore contended that, the lump sum amount is not a loan and it is a commuted value of pension. The option exercised by the member is a life time option under Para 12-A of EPS 1995 and there is no provision for restoration of pension and refund of any amount under the scheme. What the pensioner receiving is reduced value of pension as per Para 12-A of EPS 1995 was deleted with effect from 26.09.2008 vide GSR.688 (E) dt: 26.09.2008. With regard to legal notice dt: 06.04.2017, it is stated that the lump sum amount received by the complainant is not a loan and it is a commuted value of pension. Hence the allegation that, the opposite parties 1 and 2 committed deficiency of service is false. As per the option exercised by the member pensioner lump sum amount of Rs.24,200/- was released after verifying the bonafides of the recipient. It is therefore prayed to dismiss the claim of the complainant.

         3. The complainant as well as opposite parties 1 and 2 filed evidence affidavits in support of their respective contentions. The complainant as PW-1 marked Ex:A1 to A5. No documents were filed on behalf of the opposite parties. The complainant as well as opposite parties filed their respective written arguments putting forth their case.

         4.The point for consideration is:-

               Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 as alleged by the complainant? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?

                     5.Point:-   In the written arguments the counsel for complainant argued that, the complainant availed loan on pension amount on 29.12.2000 for a sum of Rs.24,200/- agreeing to deduct the same in 100EMIs @ Rs.242/- from pension amount and accordingly the opposite parties have deducted the said amount but the deductions continued and that even after discharging the loan, the complainant brought to notice of the opposite parties to stop the deductions but no action was taken by the opposite parties and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of them. It is further contended that, in spite of issuing notice also, the opposite parties kept quite without responding to the notice. PW-I claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties apart from seeking refund of the excess amount and litigation expenses.

                       The opposite parties filed written arguments admitting payment of Rs.24,200/- in lump sum to PW-I, but submitted that the said amount represent commuted value of pension but not a loan. It is further contended that, a member of EPS 1995 Scheme has got right to exercise option under section 12(A) EPS 1995 and there is no provision for restoration of pension to refund of any amount. The GP appearing for opposite parties     1 and 2 submitted that the complainant being the member of EPS 1995 Scheme exercised option to receive lump sum amount and received the reduced value of pension.

                      We are of the view that, the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act as per decision reported in AIR 2000 SC(331) between Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Appellant Vs Shiv kumar Joshi, Respondent.

                     6. Ex:A1 is the Pension Payment Order which shows that, the complainant attained superannuation on 29.12.2000 and that his pension was fixed at 725/-. Further it shows that the complainant agreed to receive reduced monthly pension of 483/-. Ex:A1 further shows that the payment should commence from the date  indicated in the table and shall continue to be made till the death of member pensioner. It is not in dispute that the complainant being member pensioner under EPS Scheme 1995 received lump sum amount of Rs.24,200/- being a commuted value of pension.(100 times commuted pension). As per Clause (VI), on death of the member pensioner or the widow/widower as the case may be who has been in receipt of reduced pension as indicated in the table, Smt. PonniAmma(Beneficiary/Nominee) shall be paid a lump sum amount of Rs.48,300/- by the disbursing agency. Ex:A2 is the legal notice dt:06.04.2017 issued by the complainant counsel stating that a sum of Rs.24,200/- is the loan amount on pension and that the complainant agreed for deduction of the said loan amount in monthly installments @ Rs.100/- for 100 EMIs and that the opposite parties have deducted the same from the pension amount from the monthly pension amount. The contention of the counsel for the complainant is that though 100 EMIs were completed long back, the deductions did not stop. Ex:A3 is the Aadhar card of the pensioner, Ex:A4 is the letter addressed by enforcement officer to the Regional P.F. Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kadapa dt: 12.04.2017 forwarding the legal notice issued by counsel for complainant requesting for restoration of commuted portion of pension of the complainant and others for restoration of commuted portion of pension. Ex:A5 is the  pass book of the complainant issued by State Bank of India, Chittoor. The opposite party’s counsel filed rules under EPS 1995 Scheme and pointed out that as per clause(13) “A member eligible to pension may, in lieu of pension normally admissible under Para 12(A), opt to draw for reduced pension and avail of return of capital under any one of the three alternatives given below”. It is clear from the rules under EPS 1995 that, the option exercised by the member is a life time option. No documents is filed by the complainant, to show that he availed loan of Rs.24,200/- agreeing to pay the loan amount in 100 equal monthly installments. On the other hand Ex:A1 clearly shows that, the amount of Rs.24,200/- paid to PW-1 is towards commuted value of pension and not loan. Hence we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove that the lump sum amount of Rs.24,200/- received by the complainant is towards commutation and not towards loan. When once it is prove that the lump sum amount represent commuted value of pension, the question of monthly deduction from the pension amount does not arise. The objective of EPS 1995 Scheme is quite different from Government rules and as such it is not open for the complainant to ask for restoration of pension after 15 years from the date of retirement. We therefore, agree with the contention of the counsel for opposite parties that there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. Accordingly we dismissed the complaint.

         In the result, complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 11^th day of July, 2018.

        Sd/-                                                                                                                            Sd/-

 Lady Member                                                                                                          President (FAC)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: P. Chinnaiah (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: K. Venkata Praveen (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Pension Payment Order particulars of P. Chinnaiah issued by Assistant Provident fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional/Sub-Regional Office, SRO, Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh.
	Office copy of Legal Notice along with Postal Receipts 2 in number Acknowledgement Cards 2 in number. Dt: 06.04.2017.
	Photo copy of Aadhaar Card bearing Card No. 9197 1019 7838.
	Photo copy of Reply Notice. Dt: 12.04.2017.
	SBI Bank Pass Book in Original.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                                      President (FAC)

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite party 1 and 2.