Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking monthly pension of Rs.450/- from April, 2010 and interest of Rs.1944/- on the pension of Rs.10,800/-; Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards expenses.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant worked in M/s Bharat General and Textile Industries Limited, KolKatta from 1977 to 2001 and left the service due to personal reasons.    The complainant contributed to pension fund under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Employees Pension Scheme 1995 to his account No.WB/CAL/6202/142.  The 2^nd opposite party maintained the pension account.  After settling down at Guntur the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 31-03-10 with the prescribed Form-10(D) and scheme certificate for his pension under para 12-B of Employees Pension Scheme.   The complainant is entitled to receive pension at Rs.450/- approximately per month.                          The 1^st opposite party forwarded the claim to the 2^nd opposite party for cancellation of scheme certificate vide their letter No.AP/RO/GNT/6202/142/2010/3044 dated 03-06-2010. The              1^st opposite party though prepared such reference on 03-05-10 dispatched it on 03-06-10.   The 1^st opposite party was informing absence of reply from the 2^nd opposite party whenever the complainant approached.    The 1^st opposite party after a gap of two years gave a reminder to the 2^nd opposite party when the complainant got issued an application on 09-02-02 under RTI Act, 2005.   The complainant got issued a notice to the opposite parties on 12-03-02.   The opposite parties though received notice did not give any reply.  The delay in settling the pension was due to negligent attitude of the opposite parties and it amounted to deficiency in service.  On account of such attitude the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony.   The complaint therefore be allowed.              

3.   The contention of the opposite parties in brief is thus:

        The opposite parties are statutory authorities under EPF & MP Act, 1952.    The 1^st opposite party fixed the monthly pension of the complainant at Rs.980/- on 21-06-12 after receiving claim form for pension from the 2^nd opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party credited Rs.27,146/- for the period from 10-03-10 to 30-06-12 to the account of the complainant bearing No.31030505813 of SBI, Brodipet, Guntur.   The complainant will get pension regularly from July, 2012 onwards.  The proceedings therefore may be dropped.  

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on behalf of complainant and opposite parties respectively. 

5.     Now the points that arose for consideration are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
3. To what relief?

7. POINT No.1:-   During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the complainant fairly conceded about the opposite parties sanctioning pension and payment of arrears under           Exs.B-1 and B-2 as correct.      

8.   The learned counsel for the complainant requested this Forum to award damages for the delay caused in sanctioning pension after two years of complainant’s application. On the other hand, the                      1^st opposite party on its behalf and on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party contended that the delay occurred due to misplacement of records and its search.  Rule 17 (A) of the Employee’s Pension Scheme, 1995 deals with payment of pension and it reads as follows:

          “The claims, complete in all respects submitted along with the requisite documents shall be settled and benefit amount paid to the beneficiaries within 30 days from the date of its receipt by the Commissioner.   If there is any deficiency in the claim, the same shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt of such application.  In case the Commissioner fails without sufficient cause to settle a claim complete in all respects within 30 days, the Commissioner shall be liable for the delay beyond the said period and penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum may be charged on the benefit amount and the same may be deducted from the salary of the Commissioner”.  

9.     The complainant worked in Calcutta and as such the                  2^nd opposite party was maintaining its account.   It is not the case of the 1^st opposite party that the application filed by the complainant is defective in certain aspects and required him to rectify.   Under those circumstances, it has to be presumed that the application submitted by the complainant was in order.  

10.   The averments of the complaint as well as affidavit revealed that the complainant submitted his pension application on 31-03-10 to the 1^st opposite party who in turn forwarded the same to the 2^nd opposite party on 03-06-10 as seen from Ex.A-3.   Thus the 1^st opposite party forwarded the pension claim of the complainant on 03-06-10 after a delay of two months and issued reminder when the complainant sought information regarding his claim under RTI Act.   The opposite parties settled the pension of the complainant after filing the CC.  Thus there was deficiency on behalf of both the opposite parties. We therefore opine that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and answer this point in favour of the complainant.

11.  POINT No.2:-    The complainant claimed Rs.1944/- as interest and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.25,000/- towards compensation.    No doubt if an employee did not get pension in time his troubles cannot be estimated in monitory terms.   The complainant it appears did not claim interest as per said rule.   Under those circumstances, awarding Rs.5,000/- as damages in lieu of interest will meet ends of justice in our considered opinion.  The said amount has to be recovered from the salary of the concerned officers as per the said rule.   We therefore answer this accordingly in favour of the complainant.

12.  POINT No.3:   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below;

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) each as damages to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties are directed to recover the above said amounts from the then Commissioners. 
4. The opposite parties are directed to comply the order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the amount mentioned in column No.1 carries interest @9% p.a., from the date of order till payment.

            Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 25^th day of August, 2012.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:   

                                  PRESIDENT