DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 63 OF 2016

Mst. Madhabi Thakur (60 Yrs.),

W/O- Late Dayanidhi Thakur, Occu: Dependant,

RO: Lahandabud, PO: H.Katapali,

PS/ Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha…………………………....…………………Complainant.

Versus

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension),

Employee’s Provident Fund Organization,

Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishyanidshi Bhawan,

Panposh Road, Rourkela,

At/PO: Panposh, PS: Rourkela,

Dist: Sundqrgarh, Odisha………………..……….…………….…………….Opp. Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                   Sri P.R.Singhdeo, Adv. & Associates.                

For the Opp. Party                                   Self.

Present:- Shri Sundarlal Behera, President, Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha, Member, Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member(W).

Order dated 12.09.2017, Shri Sundarlal Behera, President.

The complainant filed this case against the O.P as the O.P has blocked arrear family pension amount of Rs.4,530/- only.   The brief facts of the complaint case is that, the complainant is the wife of her deceased husband Dayanidhi Thakur who was an employee of co-operative society working as a Secretary who has retired from his service on dtd.28.02.1996. After retirement the said husband of complainant was eligible to get family pension vide Pension Payment order No. 1469 and he was a member of EPF having Account No. OR/491/296 and was receiving Rs.265/- only per month as family pension.  His said husband had applied the name of complainant to include in the PPO No.1469.  The O.P discontinued the family pension of complainant’s husband from April’2000 and asked to produced the marriage certificate.  The said husband replied with an affidavit sworn by his first wife Laxmi Thakur but the O.P not included the name of complainant.  The complainant’s husband was receiving family pension of Rs.302/- only upto December’2012 but the O.P again stopped till his death i.e. dtd. 06.03.2014 for which the complainant aggrieved with attitude of the O.P file this case for proper relief. 

            The O.P. appeared and filed written version through his authorized representative and submitted that unless any documentary evidence obtainable from the competent authority/ court of law declaring the legal entity of second wife during the life time of first wife there is no scope to consider the request of complainant and prayed for dismissal of the case.   

            Heard from both the sides and perused the materials available on record. Though the complainant got married with her so called Dayanidhi Thakur even after consent by his first wife Laxmi Thakur as mentioned in the affidavit of said Laxmi Thakur the second marriage is found to be illegal as per the provision of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.  The said Act prohibits on any second marriage while any wife or husband if alive.  

            In view of above facts and circumstances, we do not found any merit in the complaint, hence the complaint petition is hereby dismiss with liberty to the complainant to file the case before proper court of law.      

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 12^th day of September’ 2017 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule. 

          I Agree.                             I Agree.                                                                                           

1. Nanda, Member( W)         S.K.Ojha, Member        S. L. Behera, President                   

Dictated and corrected by me

S. L. Behera, President