BEFORE THE HON’BLEDISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BAGALKOT

Date of Admission: 05-11-2014

                                  Date of Order         : 28-03-2017

                                 Consumer Complaint No: 161/2014

PRESENT

1. Smt K.Sharada  B.A.L.L.B. (Spl)                          : President
2. Smt Sumangala Hadli   B.A.(Music)                     : Lady Member

  3) Shri Shravanakumar. D. Kadi M.Com. L.L.B.(Spl : Member

COMPLAINANT

1) Smt Kusma W/o Late Mahadev Malagudi

    Age: 54 Years, Occ: House Hold Work

    R/o Near Ambabhavani Temple

    Lavangeri Math killa

    Bagalkot-587101

                                                    (By Shri B.K.Patil Advocate)

                                                 V/s

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1) The Divisional Controller,

    N.W.K.R.T.C. Bagalkot Division,

    Divisional Office Navanagar

    Bagalkot.    

                                                     (By Shri. K.V.Kerur Advocate)

2) The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner

    Sub-Regional Office, Garaladinni Complex

    2^nd Floor Saath Kacheri Road

    Raichur-584102

                                                                    (By Smt J.V.Badami Advocate)

Speaking through Sri Shravanakumar.D.Kadi, Member

complainants is filed 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 No 2 to settle the monthly pension to the Complainant w.e.f 15-03-2000 and pay the entire arrears with interest at the rate 12% p.a., and to pay the monthly pension to the Complainant as per scheme, Rs 20,000/- towards Expenses to the Complainant, and also award cost of Rs 10,000/- .

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

      That the Complainant is the wife of late Mahadev Malagudi who was working as Driver in the Corporation of Opponent No1 he had served for than 11 years. He was a member of employees pension scheme and his PF account No was KN/989/W/288 the monthly subscription was deducted by the Op No 1 from 1989 to 2000 in the monthly wages of the complainant’s husband during the period of his service and he was retired from the service on 15-03-2000 till that period contributions deducted by Op No 1. The Complainant’s husband was expired on 09-11-2007  Op No 1 had sent 10 (D) forms along with required documents to Op No 2’s office. But Op No 2 has replied that form No 10(D) is not proper for which 10(C) form would be sent to Op No 2.Since the Complainant’s husband has completed morethan 10 Years of service and was entitled for minimum assured pension. But Op No 2 informed the Complainant that 10(C) form would be sent to the Op No 2 for releasing one time Pension amount settlement. But till today both the Opponents have not settled the matter. She has made all the efforts in approaching repeatedly to offices of Opponents ultimately issued legal notice on 054-03-2013 to both Opponents by Registered AD. But Opponents have not bothered even after receiving the legal notices in this regard it amounts to deficiency of service U/Sec 2(g) of C.P.Act 1986. Due to this act of the Op’s the complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony and hence has prayed for allowing the complaint.

3. A) That the Op No 1 has appeared through the counsel and opposed the claim of the complainant by filing his written version wherein he has denied the allegations made by the complainant against him. But he has admitted complainant’s husband was appointed as driver. It is admitted that the Complainant’s husband was a member of the Employees pension Scheme and his pension number is KN/989/W-288. It is admitted that monthly subscription was deducted by the Op No 1 in the monthly salary of the husband of the Complainant during the period of his service. It is admitted that the said deducted amount is remitted to the Office of the Op No 2. It is admitted that the Complainant’s husband was retired from services of the Op No 1 Corporation on 15-03-2000.But it is false to say that since the date of retirement, the Complainant’s husband was roaming between the two offices of the opponents for getting his monthly pension and till now his pension has not been settled the Opponents. It may be true to say that the Complainant’s husband completed 10 years services and he was entitled for minimum assured pension. That the Op No 1 submitted form No 10 (D) to the Office of the Op No 2. But the Op No 2 informed the Op No 1 stating that the said Mahadev Malagudi,husband of the complainant has not completed 10 years qualifying service to get pension and asked the Op No 1 to submit the Form (C) for one time settlement of pension claim.but the Complainant is not ready for one time settlement of pension and she is insisting for the monthly pension It is submitted that his written version there is no deficiency of service on the part of this Op No1.The complainant is not entitled to any relief etc., and hence has prayed for dismissal of the complainant with cost.

3B) That the Op No 2 has appeared through the counsel and opposed the claim of the complainant by filing his written version wherein he has denied the allegations made by the complainant against him. He has stated that Complainant’s husband joined N.W.K.R.T.C. Bagalkot division on 01-07-1992 and left the service on 15-03-2000 as per the records submitted by the Op No 1.Further as per the records of Op No 2, before joining M/s NWKRTC Bagalkot Division, the Complainant’s husband had joined NEKRTC Vijayapur Division on 01-05-1988 at the age of 48 years. He had attained 58 Years i.e., superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years on 11-05-1997 and the total eligible service rendered by him from 01-05-1988 to 11-05-1997 is 9 years and 10 days which is less than 10 years or more and retires on attaining the age of 58 years, It is submitted that his written version there is no deficiency of service on the part of this Op No2.and prayed for dropped from the case based on the information furnished above.

4.  Both the parties have filed affidavits in support of their cases. Affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant by name Smt Kusma @ kusuma  W/o Late Mahadev Malagudi and Opponent No 1 has filed his affidavit by name Shri P.S.Haveri Divisional Controller N.W.K.R.T.C. Bagalkot and Opponent No 2 has filed his affidavit by name Shri D. Hanumanthappa Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Raichur. Both the parties produced documents in Annexure.
5. Both the parties filed written arguments. Now the following points do arise for our consideration in deciding the case. They are;          

1. Whether the Op’s have rendered deficiency in service to the Complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as is sought for?
3. What Order?

Answer to the above points;

1.  Affirmative,
2. Partly Affirmative,
3. As per the final order
   5299419885.  

6 POINT NO 1:- In order to avoid repetition of the facts and reasons and also to save time, we take up the complaint for passing order as follows:-

 First of all we have to consider as to whether the service given by op No 1 is a service as is defined U/sec 2(1)(o) of the Act and as to whether the complainants are the Consumers U/sec 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act. In this regard we would like to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2008 CTJ 563 (Between Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V/s Bhavani wherein it has been held as under;

“The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who has been made responsible for working of the Employees Pension Scheme,1995 is a Service giver within the meaning of section 2 (1)(o) of the consumer Protection Act and the Pensioner  availing his services comes squarely under the definition of “consumer” under its Section 2(1)(d)(ii).”

Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is the Consumers U/Sec 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and the service given by the Op No 1 is a service U/Sec2(1)(o) of the Act.

       However, we have perused the entire records of both the parties and also heard the counsels for the parties in length, in view of above document this forum observed the following points :-

        Op No 1 stated that complainant’s husband was appointed as driver in Vijayapur division. Then the complainant continued in Bagalkot division and Complainant’s husband was retired from the services on 15-03-2000. Accordingly Op No 1 was monthly subscription deducted and remitted to Employees Provident Fund Organization. Op No 1 had sent 10 (D) forms along with required documents to Op No 2’s office. But the Op no 2 was said that Complainant’s husband not completed minimum 10 years service. He has stated that Complainant’s husband joined N.W.K.R.T.C.Bagalkot division on 01-07-1992 and left the service on 15-03-2000 as per the records submitted by the Op No 1.Further as per the records of Op No 2, before joining M/s NWKRTC Bagalkot Division, the Complainant’s husband had joined NEKRTC Vijayapur Division on 01-05-1988 at the age of 48 years. He had attained 58 Years i.e., superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years on 11-05-1997 and the total eligible service rendered by him from 01-05-1988 to 11-05-1997 is 9 years and 10 days which is less than 10 years or more and retires on attaining the age of 58 years, But  Complainant produced wage slip of 1989 we have observed said wage slip Op No 1 was deducted PF amount from his salary, then this deducted amount was remitted to Op No 2. But Op No 1 has admitted that Complainant’s husband completed 10 years services and he was entitled for minimum assured pension. That the Op No 1 submitted form No 10 (D) to the Office of the Op No 2. But the Op No 2 informed the Op No 1 stating that the said Mahadev Malagudi, husband of the complainant has not completed 10 years qualifying service to get pension and asked the Op No 1 to submit the Form (C) for one time settlement of pension claim. but the Complainant is not ready for one time settlement of pension and she is insisting for the monthly pension. Complainant and Op No 1 and 2 produced the documents as per the annexure, perused records of this complaint we observed that Complainant’s husband was joined the Vijayapur Division and then Bagalkot division he was completed service more than 10 years and also Provident fund amount was deducted from his salary from 1989, and then Op No 1 was remitted to Op No 2. That the Op No 1 has written a letter to Op No 2 it is clearly mention that Complainant’s husband appointed on 01-05-1988 he was having PF No KN/989/F/5731 and submitted 10(D) Form by Op No1 to Op No 2.Hence we are the opinion that Complainant’s husband completed service from 01-05-1988 to 15-03-2000. On scrutiny of the material evidence available on record, we find that Complainant’s husband was completed more than 10 years of service and he was entitled for minimum assured pension.

 Therefore this is none other than deficiency in service rendered by the Op No 2 .Then Op No 1 is Discharge from liability of this case.

Hence we answer to point No 1 in affirmative.

7 POINT No 2:- Once the deficiency in service is provide, the next point is how much compensation complainant is entitled for? That the Op No 2 i.e., Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional office, Raichur is hereby directed to settle the Monthly pension amount from the date of retirement and to pay the entire arrears with accrued interest of 9% from the date retirement till realization to the Complainant, towards mental agony and expenses of Rs 5,000/- and cost of the complaint is Rs 2000/-Hence, we answer Point No 2 partly in the affirmative.

8 POINT NO3:- In view of our findings to point No 1 and 2 we proceed to pass the following:-

    Complainant’s Complaint is allowed in part as follows:-

    1) Op No 2 i.e., Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional office, Raichur is hereby directed to settle the Monthly pension amount from the date of retirement and to pay entire arrears with accrued interest of 9% from the date retirement till realization to the Complainant,

    2) Op No 2 have to pay towards mental agony and expenses of Rs 5,000/- and cost of the complaint is Rs 2000/-

    3) Op No 1 is Discharge from liability of this case.

    4)  The Op No 2 shall comply with this order within two months from the date of this order, failure of which shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of retirement of the Complainants till complete realization.

                5) Free copy of this order shall be sent to the parties immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 28^th  day of March 2017)

Witness examined on behalf of the complainants:-

Smt Kusma W/o Late Mahadev Malagudi

Witness examined on behalf of the Op No1:-

Shri P.S.Haveri Divisional Controller N.W.K.R.T.C. Bagalkot

Witness examined on behalf of the Op No2:-

Shri D. Hanumanthappa Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Raichur.

  Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant

Ex C1 to Ex C5:- Pay slip

Ex C6:- True copy of appointment order

Ex C7:- True copy of Divisional establishment order No 191 dated 05-07-1990

Ex C8:- True copy of Clearance certificate dated 15-03-2000

ExC9:- True copy of the D.E.O.

ExC10:- True copy of Death certificate of Complainant’s husband

ExC11:- True copy of LR’s Certificate

ExC12:-Original Letter from Op No2 to Op No1

ExC13:- Legal Notice dated 05-03-2013

ExC14:- Postal receipt

ExC15:- Reply letter from Op No2 to Complainant’s advocate

ExC16:-Original Letter from Op No2 to Op No1

ExC17:- Postal receipt

And also produced Xerox copy of letter correspondence with Op No1 and 2

Documents produced on behalf of the Op 1 :-

ExOP1:- Xerox Copy of the from Op No 2 to Op No1

ExOp2:- Attested   Copy of letter of Op No 2

ExOp3; - Attested Copy of the letter written by Op No1 to Op No2

ExOp4:- Attested Copy of the letter written by Op No1 to D.C.NEKRTC Vijayapur

ExOp5:- Attested Copy of the letter written by Op No2 to Op No1

ExOp6:- Attested Copy of the letter written by Op No1 to Op No2

ExOp7:- Attested Copy of the letter written by D.C.NEKRTC Vijayapur to Op No1

ExOp8:- Attested Copy of the letter written by Op No1 with enclosure to Op No2

ExOp9:- Attested Copy of the letter written by Op No2 to Op No1

ExOp10:- Attested copy of the Application for monthly pension form

Ex Op11:- Attested Copy of the Service details

Ex Op12 to Op24 Attested Copy of the service records and letter correspondence

ExOp13:- Attested Copy of the letter written by Op No1 to Op No2

Documents produced on behalf of the Op 2 :-

Ex Op14 to Ex Op No 16 Xerox copy of Annexure A, B, C, (Letter to Op No1)

Ex Op17 to Ex Op No 22 Xerox copy of Annexure I, II, IV, V, and VI (Letter to Op No1)