BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, BAGALKOT.

COMPLAINT NO. 39/2017
 

DATE OF FILING: 27/05/2017

DATE OF DISPOSAL : 10^th day of May, 2019

P r e  s e n t:    

01) Smt.Sharada.K.                                   President…

     B.A.LL.B. (Spl)  

02) Smt. Sumangala.C.Hadli.                     Lady   Member…

                            B.A (Music)

                                                                V/s.      

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SHARADA.K.PRESIDENT

This case is filed by the complainant U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (Herein after referred to as the “Act”) against the Opposite parties (in Short the Ops) for directing the opponent to re-call 10(D) form of the complainant refix the pension of the complainant till realization and O.P.1 to release the difference amount of pension with accrued interest thereupon till realization and opponents to pay Rs.50,000/- as mental agony and

2.   The brief fact of the case are as follows:

          That the complainant had joined the Bagalkot Spinning Mill Ltd., on 28/06/1971 and he has been enrolled as a provident fund member and family pension member of the above organization. After filing the forms of PF and FPS an amount on 06/12/1973 has been deducted from his monthly wages and remitted at the Assistant Provident fund Gulbarge regularly in turn he has been allotted the EPS the EPS No.KN5144/48 and had served the above organization up to 25/01/1996. Complainant further submits that since from joining the above concern his PF and FPS amount is continuously deducted and remitted at opponent office at Raichur. But after retirement of the complainant, that the opponent No.2 authority had sent 10(D) form dully complied with by taking signature of the complainant and after receiving the said 10 (D) form his pension has been released by opponent No.1 and he has been allotted PPO No.KN/GLB/2070 and new PPO No.4358. That the complainant was not knowing about collecting his portion of PPO. It is to notice that, after receiving the PPO copy from the Bank on 14/12/2016 it is learnt that the pension has been commenced from 25/11/1996 while releasing the pension only 16 years of service is considered. As per the PPO copy part-I in column No.7 it is stated that, pas service upto 15/11/1995 is 16 years and in column No.9 the total qualifying year service is written as 6+7+8 is 16 years.  But actually it works out about 21 years 06 months and that has to be rounded off and the total service put in by the complainant is 22 years. The opponent defended that the pension sanctioned is correct. O.P.2 has defended that the pension sanctioned the complainant is in accordance in line with EPF scheme, no modification will be done. But the opponent No.1 committed mistake and why the Opponent No.1 is not accepting the same. Hence the Hon’ble Forum be pleased to direct the opponents to re-call the 10 (d) form and submit afresh and as per the calculation the complainant may be given the reliefs. Due to wrong calculation the complainant is loosing lot of money and depriving of 6 years pension calculation from the date of commencement of pension and further he prayed that Rs.50,000/- towards as mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings and other reliefs that forum deems fit.

3.      The Forum registered case issued notices to O.P No.1 and 2. After receipt of notice, OP.1 appeared through Advocate before the Forum and filed the objection alongwith some documents. Inspite of service of notice No.2 called out absent. Hence place exparte.

4.     Brief facts of the Written Version of O.P.No.1 :-

OP No.1 denied all the allegations made against him and submits that the complaint is not maintainable either in law and As per the records maintained at the office of respondent No.1 the complainant joined the service in M/s. Bagalkot Spinning Mill Ltd., Bagalkot on 01.02.1974 and not on 28.06.1971 as stated by the complainant, since the establishment itself was brought under the purview of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from 01.02.1974.There was no requirement of filling any forms for membership and the complainant was enrolled under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 with effect from 01.02.1974 i.e., from date of coverage of the establishment. Establishment is not regular in remitting the statutory contributions. The establishment was under liquidation from 29.03.1993. From there onwards, office of the respondent No.1 has not received statutory contributions.

O.P.1 further contended that as stated by the complainant his EPS No. GB/RCH/5144/48 and his date of leaving is 25.01.1996. Whereas, Respondent No.1 has not received statutory contributions from 29.03.1993 to 25.01.1996 that is liquidation period. On receipt of the Form No.10D, respondent No.1 had issued Pension payment Order No.4358.  Hence O.P.  submits that complainant against O.P. has to be dismissed with compensatory cost             

         5.       Complainant has filed affidavit evidence and he has also produced some documents and undisputed one therefore there is no need to go in-detail about the documents.

6.      Heard the arguments of both the sides.

7.      Now the points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complainant proved that he is entitled for the relief sought ?

2. What Order?

8.      Answers to the above Points:-

1. Negative.

2. As per final order.

: R E A S O N S :

9. Point No 1:-   That the complainant stated in his complaint that the complainant had joined the Bagalkot Spining mill Ltd., on 28/06/1971 and the enrolled as a P F member and family pension member of the Bagalkot Spinning Mill. After filing the forms of PF and FPS an amount on 06/12/1973 has been deducted from his monthly wages and remitted at the Asst. Provident fund Gulbarga regularly upto 25/01/1996.

On 25/11/1996 while releasing the pension has been commenced from 25/11/1996 while releasing pension only 16 years of service is considered. As per the PPO copy part I in column No.7 it is stated that past service upto 15/11/1995 is 16 years and in column No.9 the total qualifying years service is written as 6+7+8= 16 years. But actually it works out about 21 years 06 months. Hence rounded off a the total service put in by complaint is 22 years. The O.P. defended that the pension sanctioned correct but O.P.No.2 has defended that the pension sanctioned the complainant is in accordance in line with EPF scheme, no modification will be done. But the opponent No.1 committed mistake and why the opponent No.1 is not accepting the same.

10. O.P.No.1 in his objection submits that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. As per the records maintained at the office of respondent No.1 the complainant joined the service in M/s. Bagalkot Spinning Mill Ltd., Bagalkot on 01.02.1974 and not on 28.06.1971 as stated by the complainant, since the establishment itself was brought under the purview of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from 01.02.1974. There was no requirement of filing any forms for membership and the complainant was enrolled under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 with effect from 01.02.1974 i.e. from date of Coverage of the establishment. Establishment is not regular in remitting the statutory contributions. The establishment was under liquidation from 29.03.1993. From there onwards, office of the respondent No.1 has not received statutory contributions. As stated by the complainant his EPS No. GB/RCH/5144/48 and his date of leaving is 25.01.1996. Whereas, Respondent No.1 has not received statutory contributions from 29.03.1993 to 25.01.1996 (i.e., Liquidation Period). On receipt of the Form No.10-D respondent No.1 had issued Pension Payment Order No.4358.

The complainant Advocate has produced the citations which are:-

AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2957

Civil Appeal No.6447 of 2001, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Bhavani.

1. Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (19 of 1952), S.5-Employees Pension Scheme, 1995-Pension-Eligibility-Date of birth-Different date of birth of respondent entered in records of employer and records of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Commissioner)- Respondent continued to work with Company till date of superannuation as recorded in Company’s record-Contributed to fund till year 1995-No explanation by Commissioner  as to how such contributions were received though according to record in office of Commissioner she was superannuated earlier-Held, respondent was eligible for 1995 scheme.

The said citation is not applicable to this present complaint.

11. On perusal of the pleadings of the complaint and also his evidence and records complainant not produced salary slips and form 23 for all the years of service rendered by the complainant in M/s. Bagalkot Spinning Mill its shows that establishment is not regular in remitting the statutory contributions and remittances are not received from 29/03/1993 and as per letter No.705/89 dated 09.06.1989 written by the Managing Director of the establishment it is Crystal-clear that F P amount regularly not remitted at opponent office. Hence complaint is dismissed. We answer point No.1 is in Negative.

        12. Point No 2:-   In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 10^th day of May 2019)