Date of filing:29.09.2022

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:29.12.2023

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 29^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 1959/2022

S Sangameswaran,

S/o Late K.S.Mani Iyer,

Aged about 70 years,

Residing at No.28,

1^st Main, BSK 3^rd Stage,

Bangalore

(By Party in Person)

-Versus-

1. The Manager,

Eveready Industries India Ltd.,

21D, 2^nd Phase,

Peenya, Bangalore.

2. The Chairman,

Eveready Industries India Ltd.,

2 Rainy Park,

Kolkatta

3. The Trustees,

Eveready India Managerial Staff Pension

Fund No.2, Rainy park,

Kolkatta

(By Mr.R Ravi, Adv. for R1 to R3)

4. The Manager,

P&GS unit,

LIC of India,

JC Road,

Bangalore     …….. Respondents

(By Mr.H.N.Kasal, Adv. for R4)

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This is an appeal filed U/s 41 of CPA, 2019 by complainant aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru. (The parties to this appeal will be referred as to their rank assigned to them by the Commission below).

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard Mr.S.Sangameswaran, who is party in person and learned counsel for respondents.

3. The Complainant/appellant had raised a Consumer Complaint in CC/2424/2017 against OP Nos.1 and 2 with a prayer to direct OP Nos.1 and 2 to pay pension amount of Rs.12,00,000/- with all benefits with 20% increase every year, and to pay monthly pension of Rs.14,371/- with 18% interest p.a. from the date of entitlement to pension.  It is the case of complainant that he had served from Jan-1970 to till 30.09.2003 with OP and retired on 30.09.2003. While he was in service at Bangalore in the office of OP1 and in the month of Dec-2003 OP had obtained a policy from LIC of India, Kolkata by paying an amount of Rs.3,34,600/- to which an annuity of Rs.1,291/- p.m. to be paid to the complainant.  According to complainant, OP2 had divulged his personal information to the third party namely his Trustees, Monsanto Chemicals, Mumbai and the Monsanto Chemicals, Mumbai took another policy from LIC of India, P&G unit, Mumbai by paying an amount of Rs.3,34,600/- with an annuity of Rs.1,291/- paid to the complainant every month which was  not disclosed to him by OP Nos.1 and 2.  However, on 26.04.2016 LIC of India informed this fact and after due enquiry revealed obtaining of   such policy by OP Nos.1 and 2 and on such allegations he sought for certain reliefs to be directed against the Ops. However, on the contrary, Ops denied the allegations and it has stated in the version of OP2 that policy proposal was accepted on 03.10.2003 and the effective date commenced from 01.10.2003 itself.

4. In view of the rival contentions of the parties to the complaint we could make out the grievance of the complainant would be as an amount of Rs.3,34,600/-  which was invested to obtain policy from Ops could have fetched more than the annuity of Rs.1,291/- P.M, if calculated at the rate at 09% p.a.  But facts remain, OP Nos.1 and 2 had given option to the complainant with regard to opt retirement benefits and as per  the option of complainant OP Nos.1 and 2 had obtained policy with monthly annuity from M/s LIC for  in the name of M/s Everyday India Managerial Staff Pension Fund. Further to be noted herein such policy was purchased out of their own fund for the benefit of their employee and herein the complainant is one among them.  It is also found from enquiry that the complainant, right from the commencement of date of annuity is enjoying pension fund at Rs.1,291/- each P.M. The commencement of annuity is from 01.11.2003 and his nominee is entitled to get Rs.3,34,600/- after his life and such option was   opted by him during 2003, was also decided in his complaint CC/706/2016.  This complaint came to be dismissed on 29.12.2018 by the Commission below on merits assigning sound reasons and further to be noted herein his appeal preferred in A/185/2019   also came to be dismissed on 25.06.2021 by the State Commission.

5. In the above such circumstances, his filing complaint on complainant on the same subject and on the same cause of action was rightly negated by the Commission below.  The Commission below in its order in para-22 observed complainant had suppressed filing of CC/706/2016 and its dismissal on 29.12.2018.  Further had suppressed dismissal of A/185/2019 by the State Commission on 25.06.2021.  It may be true   had Rs.3,34,600/- was deposited either in post office or in bank or in any other financial institutions would have fetched more what OP nos.1 and 2 are giving an annuity of Rs.1,291/- P.M. but facts remain, complainant had opted for such pension scheme, which would be benefitted to him and his family and his nominee after his life cannot be compared with such investment. It is not that he had invested but the fund of his employer was investment to safeguard the interest of retired employee. Further to be noticed herein from the enquiry, had kept mum till 2016 and it is shown by Ops about crediting of monthly  annuity of Rs.1,291/- to his account which was furnished by him and him alone at the time of his submitting proposal to his employer to purchase policy at the fund value of  Rs.3,34,600/-.  At the cost of repetition, was obtained by his employer at his option from LIC to extend pensionary benefits to its employees and these factual matters were already been examined and decided not only by the Commission below but by this Commission in A/185/2019 on 25.06.2021.

6.  In the above such circumstances, filing complaint on complaint or appeal on appeal has to be held not maintainable. If at all complainant is aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2021 passed by this Commission in A/185/2019, is at liberty to approach the proper Forum but definitely not before the District or the State Commission. Thus with such conclusion, Commission proceed to dismiss the appeal with no order as to cost.

7. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

Judicial Member                                        President          

*GGH*