ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

The complainant’s case is that  the complainant was a cashew worker at K. Gopinathan Nair and company, Cashew Factory, Kalluvathukka, Kollam and she commenced her work in the year 1965 and became an EPF member in the year 1966 and she was included as a member in the Family Pension Scheme when it came into force, that she retired from her service on 31..12..1999 after completing 28 years of regular service, that after her retirement the complainant applied for the Provident Fund Pension on 1..2..2000 and the same was rejected with a reason that she was not a member of Family Pension Fund, that subsequently she filed a petition before the Provident Fund Adalath on 26..2..2007 and the same was also rejected on 27..3..2007 with the same reason and hence the complaint.

Opp.parties filed version contending that  the complaint is barred by period of limitation, that further stated that the complainant  joined the PF on 1..4..1963 at the age of  17, that she did not opt to join the Family Pension Scheme 1971 or the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 before settlement of her PF amount, that she left service on 17..4..2001 as a non employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971, member, that her PF membership ceased on 12..7..2001 when the final settlement of her PF account was effected, that the complainant never opted to join the EPS., 1995 nor contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971,  that her employer remitted EPS, contribution in respect of the complainant from 1996-97 till the date of her exit, that the complainant applied for final settlement of her PF amount in Form No.19 in June 2001, that along with her application she submitted a request [Ext. X1 and X2] through her employer dt. 26..6..2001 that she did not want the benefits of the Pension Scheme, 1995 and no amount may be deducted towards the Scheme, that thus contribution remitted towards EPS., 95 from 1996-97 to 17..4..2007 by the employer was added to her PF account and full amount with interest was paid to her on 12..7..2001 towards final settlement of her PF, that it is worth mentioning that since she did not opt to 1971 scheme her share to that scheme also merged in her PF account, that consequently she was not a member of EPS., 1995 and the Employees Provident Fund and hence she was not entitled to receive pension, that a person cannot claim pension or get membership of the pension scheme several years after verifying the membership of the Employees’ Privident Fund Scheme, that the complainant cannot claim pension and get the membership of the Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme 6 years after cessation of her membership in  the EPF, that the opp.parties pray for dismissal of the complaint as there is no merit in the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether the complaint is bad by limitation?

2.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties

3.     Reliefs and cost.

For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Ext. P1 and P2

For the opp.parties DW.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ext. D1 to Ext. D5 and X1 and X2

POINT:  1

The first question to be decided is whether the complaint is bad by limitation? According to opp.party 1 the complaint filed after six years from the date of cause of action.   Complainant contended that  the  cause of action of the complainant is a continuous cause of action.  Based on Ext.P2  the complaint is not bad by limitation.  Opp.parties main argument regarding to this point is that the complainant jointed in the Employees Provident Fund Scheme on 1..4..1963 and left service on 17..4..2001.  After her leaving service she applied for final settlement of her PF account on 12..7..2001.  After six years from 2001, the complainant filed this complaint.  Hence this complaint is barred by the Law of Limitation as per Sec. 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act.  With regard to this complainant produced decision of  the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in OP.No.33639/2002.  According this decision the date of making application for pension has no relevance     It is not with regard to a complaint filed before the Forum.  Here there is no dispute that the complaint filed before the Forum after six years from the date of final settlement of her PF account.  Hence the complainant is barred by the Law of Limitation as per Sec. 24 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The point found accordingly.

POINT  2

2^nd point to be decided is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties.   1^st opp.party’s contention is that the complainant was not a Family Pension Fund 1971 member..   The employer Opp.party 2 remitted his share along with the complainant’s share to the EPS 1995 from 1996-97 till her exit.  Through Ext. X1, X2 [Ext. D1,  Ext. D2] the opp.party proved that the complainant applied for full amount of PF since she requires the entire amount for the  marriage of her daughter,  PW.1 admits his signature and thumb impression of the complainant in Ext. D1, D2 applications.  Moreover DW.2 deposed before the forum that PW.1 signed as witness in Ext. X1 and the complainant put her thumb impression on Ext. X1 X2 in front of him and he also counter signed on these documents.  No oral or documentary evidence is produced before the Forum to show that the complainant had contributed to the 1971 scheme or opted for the 1995 scheme before settling her PF account.   As per para 6 [d], 7[3] and 17[3] the complainant is not entitled to get any amount towards pension.   The complainant could not prove that she is entitled to get pension as per 6 [d], 7[3] and 17[3].   According to opp.party 1 the employer of the complainant had remitted EPS contribution of the complainant from 1996-97 onwards to the date of her retirement.  Moreover the entire amount of said contribution due under Sec.6 of the Act was remitted to her Provident Fund Account and refunded to her on 12..7..2001.   The complainant miserably failed to disprove the said contention of opp.party 1.  On believing the contention of  1^st opp.party the complainant is not a member of EPS 1995 and  hence she is not entitled to receive pension there under.

          Hence as per the entire evidence before us and as per the provisions of the pension scheme 1995 the complainant is not entitled to get any amount towards pension.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties.

In the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed without cost.

Dated this the 27^th day of February, 2012

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Prabhakaran

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Letter dt. 27..3..2007  sent by opp.party 1 to the complainant

P2. – Photocopy of receipts

List of witnesses for the opp.parties

DW.1. – V.B. Abdul Latheef

DW.2. – C. Radhakrishna pillai

List of documents for the opp.parties

D1. – Copy of Application  sent by complainant to the employer

D2. -  Copy of  Letter sent by PF Commissioner  dated 26..6..2001.

D3. – Form 3 A

D4. – Letter sent by PF Commissioner to the complainant

D5. – Authorization letter

X1. – Original application sent by complainant to the employer [Ext. D1]

X2. – Original letter sent by PF Commissioner dt. 26..6..2001 [Ext. D2]