Date of Filing :11.11.2019
Date of Disposal : 07.08.2023
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:07.08.2023
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
APPEAL No.1522/2019
1. Mr Narayanabatrachar
S/o Late A Srirangachar,
Aged 67 years,
House No.2009, Muthuru Street,
Near Sri Raghavendraswamy Street,
Shidlaghatta – 562105 Appellant
(By Mr D V Lakshminarayana, Advocate)
-Versus-
1. The Member Secretary
Common Cadre Committee Office,
Land Bank Building,
Alur Venkatarao Road,
Chamarajapet, Bengaluru–560 018
2. The District Manager
Karnataka State Co-Operative
Agriculture & Rural Development Bank,
Near Doomlight Circle,
Kolar – 563101
3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
NFU Block, ITI Campus,
Dooravaninagar, K R Puram,
Bengaluru – 560 016 Respondents
:ORDER:
Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by Complainant aggrieved by the Order dated 30.10.2019 passed in Complaint No.77/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolar (for short, the District Forum).
2. Neither the Appellant, Respondent No.1 and 3 nor their counsels on record appeared and hence, their arguments are taken as heard, Perusal of the records reveals that there is no postal endorsement on the returned envelope on Respondent No.2, taking into consideration the vintage of the case and the age of the Complainant/Appellant herein, as a special case, the service of notice from this Commission on R2 has been dispensed with to avoid further delay and inconvenience to the Appellant/Complainant.
3. The District Forum after enquiring into the matter on IA No.1 filed by the Complainant for condonation of delay, has dismissed the complaint on the ground of delay under section 24 of CP Act and consequently, dismissed the complaint.
4. Being not satisfied with the Order of the District Forum, Complainant is in Appeal, seeking to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.
5. Perused the Impugned Order and Grounds of Appeal. The contention of the Complainant is that the Pension now being paid to him is not in accordance with the Rules and Regulations governing the payment of his entitled Monthly Pension, as he is also eligible for weightage of two years as per Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995 and also entitled to get more pension than what he is now getting.
6. The stand taken by the OP1 is that from 18.10.1976 to 14.12.1976 complainant remained unauthorised absent; those days are treated as Non salary days; his increment was postponed for about 77 days; was fixed on 03.01.1978 as the complainant was worked at Gowribdanuru, Shidlaghatta, Chintamani & Bangalore; paid the PF accumulation of Rs.6,40,932/- vide Cheque No.002573 dated 18.01.2013. After lapse of 6 years 06 months 27 days; he has raised a Complaint belatedly, as he is alleged to have stayed in America twice after retirement and not stated in which year & how many days he has stayed in America and further also not stated sufficient reasons to condone the delay. OP2 has adopted the stand taken by OP1. However, OP3 has taken a stand that after lapse of 9 years, complainant filed the instant Complaint which is not maintainable as per CP Act 1986.
7. It is observed from the records that the Complainant was a Group-D Employee of OP2; he joined the service on 01.05.1973 and retired on 29.02.2012 on attaining the age of 60 years as Assistant Development Officer after rendering 36 years of service. Respondent No.3/OP3 has been sanctioned Monthly Pension as per provision of EPS 1995 of EPFO and as per provision of EPFO he is eligible for weightage of two years and revision of his entitled Monthly Pension. The contention of the Appellant/Complainant that after retirement he went to America for two times as his son is working as priest and stayed there to eke-out his livelihood and he could not file compliant in time, delay has been caused.
8. Thus the date on which the Pensioner comes to know that the pension that is being paid not properly fixed, is the date of cause of action so as to maintain the compliant. Besides the payment of pension falls continuing & recurring Cause of Action. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2022 Live Law SC 537, decided on 20.05.2022, in Civil Appeal No.4100 of 2022 in the case of Sri M L Patil (dead) through LRs Vs the State of Goa and another, wherein, in Para 3 of the Judgement, it was held that -
“The High Court has erred in observing that the Appellant will not be entitled to any arrears of pension and the pension at the revised rates will become payable only from 1st January 2020. As such, the High Court may be right and/or justified in denying any salary for the period of two extra years to the writ Petitioners if they would have continued in service on the ground of delay. However, as far as the pension is concerned, it is a continuous cause of action. There is no justification at all for denying the arrears of pension as if they would have been retired/superannuated at the age of 60 years. There is no justification at all by the High Court to deny the pension at the revised rates and payable only from 1st January, 2020”
Thus the said decision in the instant matter is aptly applicable.
9. It is also observed that in the instant case, the Complainant has filed the Complaint only when he came to know that his Monthly Pension is being paid to him is lesser than his entitlement. Besides, taking into consideration the very objects of the CP Act and that the Complainant is already 71 years old and possibly, if his contention finds its logical end, he may stand to gain only a very paltry sum, and in the circumstances, Dismissal of Complaint on the ground of delay is definitely needs to be reconsideration and the Impugned Order does call for our interference. Accordingly, Appeal is allowed. Consequently, impugned Order dated 30.10.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No.77/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolar is hereby set aside and matter is remanded to the District Commission for reconsideration of the case afresh by giving an opportunity to all the parties concerned by adducing additional documents, if any and decide the matter in accordance with Law within three months from the Date of this Order.
Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.
President
*s
