DATE OF FILING: 15.05.2018
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Sudhansu Mohan Pattnaik has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant was an employee (Junior Accountant) of the Odisha State Road Transport Corporation, Berhampur from 02.09.1963 to 31.03.1998 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years on 31.03.1998. The complainant exercised his option to contribute an amount of Rs.55/- per month from his original pension of Rs.551/- w.e.f. 29.03.1998 towards the benefit of return of capital 1 U/P-13-1 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 i.e. for payment of the full amount of capital value of Rs.55,100/- to his nominee wife Sailabala Pattnaik after the death of the complainant-pensioner only. This fact has been clearly mentioned in the part-IV of the P.P.O. No. OR-BAM-2639. As on today the complainant-pensioner is contributing Rs.55/- per month from his monthly pension for the future benefit. The name of the beneficiary/nominee to get the benefit of Rs.55,100/- has been mentioned in the name of Sailabala Pattnaik, the wife of the complainant-pensioner. But the nominee wife Sailabala Pattnaik has expired on 25.02.2015. This fact has been intimated to the O.P.No.1 by the complainant-pensioner in his letter dated 16.11.2015 with a request to change the name of the nominee in favour of his only son Sri Susil Pattnaikk, when the 1st nominee Sailabala Pattnaik expired on 25.02.2015. The complainant sent letter dated 16.11.2015, 2nd letter dated 08.01.2018, 3rd letter dated 05.03.2018 for change of name of nominee in favour his son Susil Pattnaik, concerning to the return of capital value of Rs.55,100/-. No intimation letter or confirmation letter has been issued by the O.P.No.1 till date, which caused physical harassment and mental agony to the senior citizen complainant-pensioner. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to issue an intimation letter/confirmation letter with regard to the change of nominee in favour of the son Susil Pattnaik in place of the deceased wife Sailabala Patnaik, compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P.No.1 and 2 filed version through his advocate. It is stated that on receipt of recommendation of the petitioner vide dated 16.11.2015 towards change of nominee for the beneficiary of Return of capital-1 (ROC) after the death of his wife Smt. Sailabala pattrnaik. This office has taken prompt action and changed the nominee from Smt. Sailabla Pattnaik (wife) to Sri Sri Sushil Pattnaik (son). Thus, there is no deficiency in service. Hence, the petition of the complainant may please be dismissed in the interest of justice.
4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint learned counsel for the complainant and the O.P. were present. We heard argument from both sides at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, and documents placed on the case record. In the meantime the advocate for the complainant filed a petition on dated 07.08.2018 stating therein that the O.Ps (E.P.F.O.) have redressed the grievance of the complainant as such advocates Mr. Srichandan Patnayak has requested to pass kind orders to close the case. This Forum sent a notice to the complainant vide letter No. 457 dated 20.08.2018 to remain present on dated 11.09.2018. In response to this notice it is stated by his advocate that the complainant is aged about 79 years and unable to move as a result the complainant is not sound and fit to appear before the Hon’ble Forum on 11.09.2018. The O.P. changed the nominee on 16.11.2015 but remained silent without any intimation till 05.07.2018.
5. On foregoing discussion, it is crystal clear that the complainant’s case has been redressed by the O.P. as such he wants to close this case. Hence in our considered view the O.P. is not negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Hence the complainant’s case is dismissed against O.P. without cost.
The order is pronounced on this day of 27th October 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 www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
