In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 378 / 2008.
1) Sri Vijay Kumar Bhatia,
33/29, Nabim Chandra Das Road, Kolkata-700090. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The Trustees, Hyderabad Industries Limited,
Superannuation Fund, Sanat Nagar, Hyderabad-500018.
2) The President, Heavy Engineering Division,
Hyderabad Industries Limited, Hind Motor, Kolkata,
712233, Hooghly.
3) The President, Hindustan Motors Limited,
9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001.
4) The Manager, Pension and Group Scheme Department,
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kolkata,
Metropolitan Divisional Office-I, Jeevan Prakash,
16, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-700072.
5) The Manager, Pension and Group Scheme Department,
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office,
Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-500463. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 30 Dated 15/05/2012.
The petition of complaint is filed by the complainant Sri Vijay Kumar Bhatia against the o.ps. The Trustees, Hyderabad Industries Ltd. and others. The fact of the case in short is that complainant rendered his services to o.p. no.3 since October 1975 as Service Planning Engineer at their Uttarpara Factory and further case of the complainant is that one of the conditions of the service was that there was superannuation fund in place of pension contributed by the employer will be one of the benefits of the complainant after continuous service of 20 years and the said amount will be paid directly by LICI under the said scheme and employer started depositing contribution in favour of the complainant @ 10% of the salary of the complainant towards such superannuation fund and the said amount was being deposited in an Annuity Fund Scheme with LICI and the complainant was allotted serial no.420 HE Division Employment no.127849 and according to the statement of accounts issued by o.p. no.3 as on 31.3.1987 the amount was shown Rs.43,364.51. Complainant continued service for 22 years and thereafter complainant tendered resignation on medical ground and which was accepted by o.ps. on 21.3.1997 and complainant received all the accrued benefits except benefit of superannuation fund. Hence, the case.
All the o.ps. except o.p. no.2 contested the instant case by filing w/v and evidence challenging the claim of complainant on the plea that the aforesaid superannuation scheme was something a scheme wherein only employer use to pay the contribution and no contribution was being paid by the employee / complainant and o.ps. had submitted that the instant case is not maintainable in the two spirits of the schemes since complainant tendered resignation even after running 22 years of service.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It transpires from the record that complainant received all the benefits except benefits on superannuation fund. It is further apparent from the record that complainant tendered his resignation and the same was accepted by the authorities concerned on 21.3.1997 and such resignation cannot be construed as retirement on superannuation and moreover, the scheme in question and the benefits sought for is a group insurance scheme wherein employer / complainant did not have any contribution at all. Besides we find vide annex-K i.e. judgment passed by this Forum in CDF Unit-I Case no.620 of 1999 vide order no.33 dt.3.12.07 wherefrom we find that this matter was earlier adjudicated on merit and the instant case is barred by the principle of resjudicata.
Hence, ordered,
That the instant case stands dismissed since barred by principle of resjudicata as well as barred by law.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-_____ ____Sd-______ ______Sd-______
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
