ADV RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.
Complainant filed this complaint for getting pension. Complainant’s case is that the complainant was an employee of M/s. Janso Exports [P] Ltd., a cashew factory at Nallila, that she was working in the peeling section of the said factory as No.145, that the complainant is a covered employee under the Employees Provident Fund with PF No.1259/300, that she was contributing to the Provident Fund since 1963, that she was enrolled as a member of the scheme since 1971 without delay or default at lthe proper time itself, that the complainant retired from service in the year 1995, that after her retirement the complainant applied to the first opp.party for her provident fund pension in 10-D pension form through the 2nd opp.party, that but the first opp.party rejected the pension benefit stating that the complainant was not a member of Provident fund pension scheme and had completed the age of 60 years before 1..4..1993, that the complainant did not have any formal school education, that her birth was not registered before Registrar of Births and Deaths, that the 1st opp.party rejected her application with the reason that the complainant was not a member of the family pension fund scheme 1971 and her date of leaving service is 6..8.1996, that is before the implementation of the revised pension scheme 1995. Hence filed this complaint for getting relief.
The 1st opp.party filed version contending that the complaint is barred by period f limitation under Sec. 24A of the Consumer Protection Act., that the complaint filed on 11.5..2009 after 9 years of settling her PF account, that the delay is not explained and no reason whatsoever stated, that the complainant joined in the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, on 1..4..1963, that her date of birth as per statutory return filed by the employer in Form -9 return was 33 as on 1..4..1963, that the complainant left service in August 1996, that her PF Account was settled on 8.8.1996, that she was not a Family Pension Fund member or EPS, 1995, that her PF membership stands ceased on settlement of her account, ie, on 8.8.1996. Hence she is not entitled to get pension and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible for pension under the pension Scheme 1995?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties?
4. Reliefs and cost.
For the complainant PW.1. was examined and marked Ext. P1 to P3
For the opp.party DW.1 was examined and marked Ext. D1.
Point:1
The first point to be decided is whether the complaint is maintainable? There is no dispute that the complainant left service in August 1996 and her PF Account was settled on 8..8..1996. After settling her PF account she ceases to be a member in the Provident Fund. This complaint is filed on 11.5.2005 ie after 9 years after settlement of PF Account. Hence the complaint is barred by period of limitation under Sec. 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.
Point 2 to 4
Complainant’s case is that she was contributing to the provident fund since 1963. and she was enrolled as a member of the scheme from 1971. Opp.parties contention is that she was only a member in the Provident Fund Scheme. and not a member in Family Pension Scheme 1971 and Employees Pension Scheme 1995. Here the complainant did not produce any documents to prove her date of birth. But the opp.party produced Ext. D3 Form No.9 to prove the complainant’s age. Since there is no other document we are constrained to rely upon Ext. D3. Based on Ext. D3 the complainant’s date of birth is 33 years as on 1..4..1963 Even though the complainant retired service on 1996 she attained the age 58 years on 1988. The main point to be decided is whether the complainant is a member in Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971 or EPS 1995, According to the 1st opp.party complainant is not a member in neither of the above said schemes. Complainant contended that she was a member in FPFS 1971. For proving the said contention complainant produced Ext.P1 . But it shows that she has remitted contributions to Employees Provident Fund 1952 only. Complainant did not produce any other document to prove that she was a member of the Family Pension Scheme 1971. Ext. D2 series also shows that no contribution towards Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971. So from the evidence we found that the complainant is not a member of 1971 Scheme. As per Ext. D3 the complainant attains 58 years on 1988 and settled her PF Account on 8.8.1996. There is no evidence to show that she was a member of Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971 or EPS 1995. Her membership stands ceased on settlement of her account. As per para 7 of Employees pension Scheme 1995, as the complainant being a non- Family Pension Fund/Employees Pension Fund member ceased membership in Employees Pension Scheme 1952, is not eligible for re-option after settlement of PF account. This point is supported by the decisions of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No.883/2004 and 861/2006produced from the side of opp.party 1. Hence from the whole evidence we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get pension. The rejection of her pension application by the 1st opp.party is legal. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. The complainant is not entitled to get relief. Point found accordingly.
In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without cost.
Dated this the 8th day of March, 2012.
.
I n d e x
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. – Kamalamma
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Receipts [Form 23]
P2. – Pension payment order
P3. – Pass book [copy]
List of witnesses for the opp.parties
DW.1. – Lekshmi
List of documents for the opp.parties
D1. – Annexure A
