Karnataka

StateCommission

A/527/2020

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Victor Pereira - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

13 Jun 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :24.08.2020

Date of Disposal :13.06.2023

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:13.06.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

 

APPEAL No.527/2020

 

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Rep. by Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner,

Regional Office :

No.13, Rajaram Mohan Roy Road,

Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan,

Bengaluru – 560025.

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)                                           Appellant

 

-Versus-

Mr Victor Pereira
S/o Mr F F Pereira,

Aged about 64 years,

No.37, 1^st Floor, 1^st Cross,

Anubhavanagar,

Nagarabhavi,

Bengaluru – 560072.                                                       Respondent

(By Mrs Pushpa T S, Advocate)         

         

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, by OP aggrieved by the Order dated 31.01.2020 passed in Consumer Complaint No.1167/2018 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       This Commission heard the Arguments of the Learned Counsels on record.

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP to revise the Monthly Pension of the Complainant from Rs.1,830/- to Rs.2,176/- and to pay the difference of amount Rs.346/- from 30.04.2010 with interest at 6% p.a, to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost and litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Order. Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal.

 

4.       Perused the Impugned Order and grounds of Appeal.

5.       According to the Appellant, the Respondent retired on 27.04.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation and had put in pensionable service of 20 years.  The Appellant has revised the monthly pension by granting of weightage of 2 years and arrears also have been paid during January 2017 to the Respondent.  The District Forum has erroneously held that the Respondent is eligible for total service of 31 years, including weightage of 2 years, which in fact he is not eligible, as there was break in service/non-contributory period of 368 days, hence, the past service has been taken as 18 years 6 months and pensionable service is 13 years 6 months 17 days.  Thus the eligible service will be 32 years and 17 days only.  Further, the weightage of 2 years has been added and the total service has been reckoned as 34 years.  Therefore, Appellant rightly calculated Monthly Pension of Respondent.

6.       The observation of the District Forum in Para 16 of its Impugned Order, that the Complainant joined the service on 13.05.1976, retired on 30.04.2010 i.e., past service is 14 years 6 months is rounded off to 14 years and the actual service of 17 years 5 months 12 days is rounded off to 17 years, when taken into consideration, reflects that the Complainant has put in total pensionable service of 31 years.  Taking into consideration, the salary of the Complainant at the time of his retirement is Rs.6,389/-, Rs.6,389/- x 17+2/70, which works out to Rs.1,764.28 and adding the sum of Rs.412/- p.m being the Pension for past service, the same works out to a Monthly Pension of Rs.2,176.28. Also, the Complainant is already drawing a Pension of Rs.1,830/- p.m and the difference works out to  Rs.346/- p.m, which the Complainant is entitled to from 30.04.2010 onwards, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

7.       A perusal of the records, it is observed that the Appellant has been granted two years of weightage, the entitled Monthly Pension of the Complainant has been revised and arrears of Pension has also been paid accordingly.  The dispute is only with regard to the computation of the total service rendered by the Complainant and fixation of his entitled Monthly Pension.

8.       In view of the claims and counter claims by the parties concerned, which is not backed up by authentic facts and figures, this Commission is of the considered opinion that, it will be appropriate to remand the matter to the District Commission to provide opportunities to both the parties.

9.       Under the circumstances, the Impugned Order requires to be interfered with by remanding the matter to the District Forum. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed.  Consequently, the Impugned Order dated 31.01.2020 passed in Consumer Complaint No.1167/2018 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru is hereby set aside and matter is remanded to the District Commission to re-consider the case afresh, by affording an opportunity to both the parties and to decide the case in accordance with law, within three months from the date of this Order.

10.     The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be refunded to the Appellant on proper identification by his Advocate.

11.     Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

                                                                      President

*s