For the O.P.No.3: Mr. Krushan Prasad Pattnaik, Advocate
DATE OF FILING: 12.05.2016
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 12.01.2018.
Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member (W)
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressed of his grievances before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the complainant was an employee (Driver) of the Odisha State Road Transport Corporation (O.P.No.3) from 05.09.1980 to 31.08.2012 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years on 31.08.2012. The complainant is an employee of O.P.No.3 (OSRTC) is an EPF member and contributed his contributions as well as employer’s share in under bearing No.OR-BAM-87-3748 from 05.09.1980 to 28.02.2008 under the administrative control of O.P.No.1 (SRO, Berhampur) and OR-BBS-88-951: from 01.03.2008 to 31.08.2012 respectively under the administrative control of O.P.No.2 (R.O. Bhubaneswar). The O.P.No3 (OSRTC) is the principal employer of the complainant who remitted the EPF contributions of the complainant to the above two EPF accounts maintained by the O.P.No.1 and 2 under the provisions of the EPF and M.P. Act 1952. It is also stated that the complainant retired on 31.08.2012 and submitted the member pension claim Form-10D on 17.01.2013 in the office of O.P.No.2 through the employer O.P.No.3 for sanction of member pension in favour of the complainant under the provisions of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, which is the beneficiary scheme under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The O.P.No.2 transfer-out the pension claim form and documents of the complainant (member-employee) to the O.P.No.1 for sanction of the member pension since the complainant’s monthly pension disbursing bank comes under the jurisdiction of O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 sanctioned the monthly member pension of the complainant @Rs.1,895/- per month w.e.f. 28.08.2017 as per the Pension Payment Order No. OR/BAM/14992 and the disbursing bank was crediting the monthly pension proceeds in the complainant’s saving bank pass book account number 32353074155 regularly. It is also mentioned that the complainant mentioned the details of his family i.e. wife, disabled son above 25 years and son below 25 years in the Form-10D in column No.12 at pages-3 indicating them as the beneficiaries eligible for pension after the death of the complainant (member employee) as per the provision of E.P.S. 1995. The O.P.No.1 released the P.P.O. No. OR/BAM/14992 indicating in that the name of the complainant’s wife (Kanti Mallik) and 2nd son (Subhrant Mallik below 25 years) only, in the column of beneficiary details of family members eligible for the pension after the death of the complainant. But the name of the disabled son (Santosh Mallik) above 25 years was omitted from the P.P.O. which proves the deficiency in service of the O.P.No.1 & 2, since the disabled child is entitled for pension after the death of the father. In pension claims Form-10D at column No.12 in the particulars of family at page-3 the complainant has mentioned details of the disable son (Santosh Mallik) and the required documents such as (a) Disability Certificate of the Medical Board (60%), (b) Voter ID was also enclosed. As per Para- 16(3)(e) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, the 60% permanently and totally disabled son Santosh Mallik of the complainant shall be entitled to get the monthly disabled child pension irrespective of age and number of children after the death of the father complainant. The Medical Board Disability Certificate clearly shows the disability is permanent. It is also informed that in order to avail the disabled child pension after the death of the father/complainant, it is essential to reflect the name of the disabled son Santosh Mallik in the P.P.O. No. OR/BAM/14992, otherwise the disabled son will lose the benefit. It is alleged that the O.P.No.1 & 2 intentionally omitted the disabled son’s name in the P.P.O. when the disabled son’s name and date of birth clearly mentioned in the pension claim form-10D dated 17.01.2013 by the complainant. The present consumer complaint has been filed to include the name of disabled son in the P.P.O. for future benefit. For this the complainant had redressed his grievances before O.P.No.2 time and again but the O.Ps did not give any heed to his grievances. Hence, complainant has filed this consumer dispute against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to set the name of his disabled son Sri Santosh Mallik in the “Details of Family Members” column in P.P.O. No. OR-BAM-14992 along with wife and second son to avail pension after death of the father/complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards physical harassment and mental agony and cost of litigation in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P.No.1&2 appeared through learned counsel Mr.Surya Narayan Mohapatra, Advocate and filed written version/ argument. In the written version/ argument it is stated that a medical certificate has been called for from the Chief District Medical Officer (CDMO), Ganjam towards consideration of disable children pension under EPS, 1995 in respect of Sri Santosh Mallick. On receipt of the said certificate the O.P. No.1&2 will take necessary action towards consideration of disabled child pension in respect of Sri Santosh Mallick, if found eligible. It is also informed that monthly pension in respect of eligible beneficiaries has already been released. With regard to release of pension in respect of Sri Santosh Mallick, it is submitted that necessary certificate has been called for from Chief District Medical Officer, Ganjam, towards consideration of disabled pension. The O.P. No.1 on 08.02.2017 vide L.No.SRO/BAM/EO/OR/Legal/CCNo.37/2017 wrote a letter to the CDMO, Ganjam to issue of a medical certificate in favour of Sri Santosh Mallick, the disabled son of the complainant to do the needful and as per the letter dated 09.02.2017 issued a letter to the complainant to attend the medical board on 02.03.2017. The O.P. No.1 once again on 12.01.2017 also issued another letter to the CDMO Ganjam to issue of the medical certificate for taking action to include the disabled son in PPO order. Accordingly the CDMO, Ganjam in his letter No.11942/Misn’16 informed the O.P. No.1 that the son of the complainant attended the medical board examination on 02.08.2016 and after examination the required certificate in the prescribed format was issued to O.P.No.1 in original for information and necessary action. Accordingly, the grievance of the present complainant has been complied and the revised PPO is also issued. Hence, the petition of the complainant may please be dismissed in the interest of justice.
4. On dated 17.08.2016 one advocate filed Vakalatanama on behalf of O.P.No.3 without mentioning his name and filed written version dated 19.10.2016. However, on 08.01.2018 during the case was reserved for order, the concerned person mentioned his name in the Vakalatanama. In the written version, it is stated the petition is not maintainable in the eye of law and fact. There is no cause of action for filing the alleged petition and alleged petition is based upon false, fabricated and wrong story. The complainant was working as Driver under OSRTC from 05.09.1980 to 31.08.2012 and retired on 31.08.2012 at the ages of 58 years. The claim as agitated by the complainant relates to O.P.No.1 & 2 as the pension claim of complainant has been sent by O.P.No.3 to O.P. No.1 & 2. The O.P.No.1 & 2 have to scrutinize the papers and sanction pension as per rule. The O.P.No.3 is no way related to the present claim of complainant. As the matter and whole grievance of claimant relates to O.P.No.1 & 2 and there is no claim against O.P.No.3, the claim petition is not maintainable against the O.P.No.3 hence the O.P.No.3 prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
5. On the date of final hearing of the consumer dispute we have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as O.P.No.1 & 2. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 is found absent on repeated calls and even not filed the written argument. We have also gone through the case record and verified he documents. During the course of hearing of the consumer dispute, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in this case the complainant was an employee (Driver) OSRTC and he is a member under provisions of EPF and M.P. Act, 1952. The complainant retired on 31.08.2012 and submitted the member pension claim Form-10D on 17.01.2013 in the office of O.P.No.2 thorough O.P.No.3. The complainant mentioned details of his family i.e. wife, disability son above 25 years and son below 25 years in the Form-10D in column No.12 at page-3. The O.P.No.1 released the P.P.O. No.OR/BAM/14992 indicating in the name of the complainant’s wife and second son Subrant Mallick, aged below 25 years but omitted the disability of son Santosh Mallick, aged above 25 years. It is contended that the disabled child is eligible for pension after death of his father the present complainant under Para- 16(3) (e) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. So the complainant has filed this case before this Forum with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to include the name and disability of Santosh Mallick, the disabled son of complainant in the PPO order and to pay compensation and cost in the interest of justice.
6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for O.P.No.1 and 2 in his submissions contended that it is a fact that complainant is a bonafide member under provisions of EPF and MP Act, 1952. It is also a fact that due to oversight the name of the disabled son of present complainant was omitted. However, after receipt of notice from this Forum the office of O.P. No.1 took necessary action to consider and finalize it. The O.P.No.2 also took necessary steps to resolve the problem vide his Letter No.OR/BBS/pen-1/88/951/6466 dated 12.01.2017 to the Chief District Medical Officer, Ganjam, Berhampur, with reference to previous letter No. OR/BBS/Pen-1/38/951/567 dated 28.06.2016. The learned counsel for O.P.No.1 and 2 further contended that the Enforcement Officer, EPFO, Odisha, vide letter No. SRO/BAM/EO/OR/BAM/legal/ C.C.No.37/2016 dated 08.02.2017 requested to the Chief District Medical Officer, Ganjam, Berhampur for issuance of medical certificate in favour of Santosh Mallick, the disabled son of complainant to include in the details of beneficiaries of family pension of complainant. Finally, the CDMO, Ganjam in his Letter No.11942 dated 04.08.2017 informed the O.P. No.1 regarding issuance of the disability certificate in the prescribed format and after that the O.P.No.1&2 revised the PPO order. So, there is no deficiency in service on part of the O.P.No.1&2. Similarly O.P.No.3 contended in his version that soon after receipt of the forma and documents the same was forwarded to O.P.No.1 and 2 for necessary action. The learned counsel for O.P.No1&2 also submitted documents in the Forum vide P.P.O. No OR/BAM/00018599 debitable to E.P.F.A/c- 1 disabled child name of the complainant was added in the details of the beneficiaries of the family of the complainant hence the case bears no merit and may be dismissed in the interest of justice.
7. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions and perused the pleadings of parties. We have also verified the material documents to corroborate the contentions of counsels for complainant as well as for the O.P. No.1&2. On a careful verification of materials placed on the case record we find that in this case admittedly the name of the disabled child of the present complainant Santosh Mallick, above 25 years of age though mentioned but the word disability was omitted by the O.P.No.1 in the PPO No.OR/BAM/00014992 in spite of details along with documents submitted by the complainant through Form 10D (EPS) dated 17.1.2013. For that the complainant redressed his grievance before O.P.No.1 on 12/04/2015, 7.7.2015, 31.10.2015 and 11/04/2016 respectively. The claim of the complainant was intimated by the O.P. No.1 to the office of O.P. No.2 on 30.7.2015 & 10.11.2015 under intimation to the present complainant. The O.P. No.2 in his letter dated 29/09/2016 intimated to the O.P. No.1 that for the same they have called for a disability certificate from the CDMO, Ganjam for inclusion of the name of disabled son of the present complainant. It further reveals that the O.P. No.1 also issued a letter to the CDMO, Ganjam on 12/01/2017 & 08/02/2017 to issue a disability certificate in favour of the son of the complainant. Accordingly the CDMO, Ganjam on 09/02/2017 issued a letter to the present complainant to attend the District Disability Board on 02/03/2017 at City Hospital, Berhampur, Ganjam with connected documents in original. However, on the scheduled date though the son along with complainant attended the District Disability Board, Ganjam but the CDMO, Ganjam could not issue the certificate. However, the CDMO, Ganjam vide his letter No.11942/Misn’16 dated 04/08/2016 furnished the Disability Certificate in the prescribed format to O.P. No.2 issued on 02/08/2016 by the Medical Board, Ganjam. Accordingly, the O.P. No.1 in his revised PPO order vide No.OR/BAM/00018599 mentioned the name of disabled son but again by mistake did not mention the disability against the name of Santosh Kumar Mallick. It is also seen from the case record the learned counsel for the complainant also filed a memo on 25.10.2017 pointing out the fact that even in the revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) the word disabled was not mentioned. In view of that, this Forum directed the O.P. No.1&2 to mention the word ‘disabled son’ in the revised PPO and the copy of the revised order was served on the complainant through this Forum after inclusion of the name and disability of his son. In the foregoing context, we observed that the O.P.No.1&2 even after filing of this consumer complaint failed to rectify their mistake even after several opportunities allowed since from the Form 10-D (EPS) it was crystal clear that the O.P.No.1&2 despite details furnished by the complaint omitted the disability word against the name of Santosh Mallick, son of the present complainant. In a sequel discussion to the above discussion we feel that the O.P.No.1&2 have harassed by non-mentioning the disability word in the PPO for which the complainant was forced to file this consumer complaint against the O.Ps. Hence, the O.P.No.1&2 are liable to pay cost of litigation to the complainant.
8. In this dispute, the complainant has prayed direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant by the O.Ps. However, the complainant has not submitted any cogent and convincing documentary evidence of his loss and suffering hence we are convinced to direct the O.P to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and suffering from mental agony but we are convinced to consider the prayer of the complainant and agreed to award cost of litigation. As far as the cost of litigation is concerned, we feel that a sum of Rs.1,000/- will be just and proper as per the fact and circumstances of the case be paid by the O.P.No.1&2 jointly for compelling the complainant to file this consumer complaint with the help of a professional Advocate to assert his rights. It is also a fact that the complainant has paid court fees and incurred expenditures for filing this consumer dispute. So, the O.P. No.1&2 are liable to compensate the legal expenses of complainant on payment of Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation as quantified above. However, after a careful perusal of the case record, we feel that the O.P.No.3 has no fault and not acted negligently since the O.P. No.3 has swiftly forwarded the Form 10D to the O.P. No.1&2 for necessary action so the O.P.No.3 is exempted from the liability. In the light of the above discussion and considering the peculiar fact and circumstances of the case we partly allowed the case of the complainant against O.P.No.1&2 and dismissed against O.P.No.3.
9. In the result, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed against O.P.No.1&2 to the payment of cost only and dismissed against O.P.No.3. The O.P.No.1&2 are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- only towards cost of litigation to the complainant as discussed above. The aforesaid orders shall be complied by the O.Ps within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the said amounts under section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, in the peculiar fact and circumstances there is no order as to payment of compensation. The case of complainant is disposed of accordingly.
10. The order is pronounced on this day of 12th January 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
(Dr. Alaka Mishra) Member (W)
I Agree (Dr. N. Tuna Sahu) Presiding Member
