The Principal HKESocieties SLN Engg College V/S Smt. Annapurna W/o. Late Amarappa Kannur - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 91/07

Smt. Annapurna W/o. Late Amarappa Kannur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Principal HKESocieties SLN Engg College - Opp.Party(s)

T.M.Swamy

13 Dec 2007

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 91/07

K.A. Nagarthna D/o. Late Amarappa Kannur K.A. Veerabhadragouda S/o. Late Amarappa Kannur Smt. Annapurna W/o. Late Amarappa Kannur						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Asst.P.F. Commissioner (Pension) E.P.F. Organization The Principal HKESocieties SLN Engg College						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Perused the complaint. Heard counsel for the complainant on admission of the complaint for enquiry. The main grievance of the complainant is that Respondent No-2 has wrongly fixed her Family pension by taking into wrong date of birth of her late husband said to have been furnished by Respondent No-1 whereas the correct date of birth of her husband is 01-06-1959 and the same has been affirmed by the very Respondent No-1 vide his certificate/letter dt. 28-10-2005. Consequently the pension fixed by the Respondent No-2 is wrong and that in-spite of correspondence and legal notice got issued by her, both the Respondents particularly Respondent No-2 has not re-fixed her pension. Hence she has filed this complaint seeking direction to the Respondents to sanction family pension as per correct date of birth of her husband. Originally the complainant has sought for direction for re-fixation of her pension, however by way of amendment in the prayer column she has sought for direction to pay appropriate pension amount as per correct date of birth of her husband as 01-06-1959. But any how the complaint averments especially in Paras 4 to 7 amply go to show that Respondent No-2 has already fixed pension on the basis of information furnished by Respondent No-1 regarding length of service and date of birth of her husband. If this is so how the alleged attitude of fixation of pension by the Respondent No-2 amounts to deficiency in service? and how this complaint is maintainable. Especially when OP.No-2 has replied through his letter dt. 14-09-07 that he has fixed the pension as per Information furnished by OP.No-1 in Form No-9. It appears that the complainant has wrongly approached this Forum instead of approaching appropriate Forum to set right her grievance. The alleged wrong fixation of pension by the Respondent No-2 does not amount to deficiency in service within the provisions of C.P. Act. Hence the complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be and the same is hereby rejected U/s. 12(3 ) of C.P. Act. Office to return the documents enclosed with the complaint to the counsel for the complainant under due acknowledgement. Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.

Perused the complaint. Heard counsel for the complainant on admission of the complaint for enquiry. The main grievance of the complainant is that Respondent No-2 has wrongly fixed her Family pension by taking into wrong date of birth of her late husband said to have been furnished by Respondent No-1 whereas the correct date of birth of her husband is 01-06-1959 and the same has been affirmed by the very Respondent No-1 vide his certificate/letter dt. 28-10-2005. Consequently the pension fixed by the Respondent No-2 is wrong and that in-spite of correspondence and legal notice got issued by her, both the Respondents particularly Respondent No-2 has not re-fixed her pension. Hence she has filed this complaint seeking direction to the Respondents to sanction family pension as per correct date of birth of her husband. Originally the complainant has sought for direction for re-fixation of her pension, however by way of amendment in the prayer column she has sought for direction to pay appropriate pension amount as per correct date of birth of her husband as 01-06-1959. But any how the complaint averments especially in Paras 4 to 7 amply go to show that Respondent No-2 has already fixed pension on the basis of information furnished by Respondent No-1 regarding length of service and date of birth of her husband. If this is so how the alleged attitude of fixation of pension by the Respondent No-2 amounts to deficiency in service? and how this complaint is maintainable. Especially when OP.No-2 has replied through his letter dt. 14-09-07 that he has fixed the pension as per Information furnished by OP.No-1 in Form No-9. It appears that the complainant has wrongly approached this Forum instead of approaching appropriate Forum to set right her grievance. The alleged wrong fixation of pension by the Respondent No-2 does not amount to deficiency in service within the provisions of C.P. Act. Hence the complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be and the same is hereby rejected U/s. 12(3 ) of C.P. Act. Office to return the documents enclosed with the complaint to the counsel for the complainant under due acknowledgement. Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.