MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.       This is an appeal filed by OPs No.1 and 2 against order dated 23.8.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 123 of 2010.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant was working as Manager (Accounts) with Food Corporation of India (FCI) and he retired on 31.10.2009. While in service, complainant was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme-1995 having CPF No.3627 and F.P.S. A/c No.8781 and was entitled for pension under EPS 1995 from 1.11.2007 on attaining the age of 58 years. It was submitted by the complainant that prior to his retirement, the complainant submitted all the requisite papers for the grant of pension under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, which were forwarded by OP No.2 vide letter dated 26.5.2008 to OP No.1 (FCI), who forwarded the same to OP No.3. But despite lapse of two years, no response was received from the concerned Ops. It was submitted that despite timely submission of the required papers with the authorities, neither the pension was released nor any reasons were explained for withholding the same and accordingly the pension of the complainant was illegally withheld by the concerned authority. Due to non payment of pension to the complainant for a long time, the complainant suffered a great financial and irreparable loss, in addition to it, complainant was put to mental agony/distress on account of undue delay in releasing the pension to the complainant. The above said act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.       Reply was filed by the OPs No.1 and 2 (FCI) and admitted the factual matrix of the case but it was denied that the complainant completed all the formalities. It was pleaded that the complainant claimed interest for the delay of 24 months whereas he himself completed the formalities and submitted the Form 10-D and other papers on 12.2.2008 i.e. after a period of about 15 months and the papers were forwarded to the DGM (CPF), FCI, Noida vide letter dated 20/26.3.2008. DGM, FCI Noida after completing all the formalities forwarded the same to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida vide his letter dated 3/6.4.2010 but the same were returned by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida to FCI Zonal Office, Noida. The FCI Zonal Office, Noida after due process forwarded the papers to RPFC, Noida vide letter dated 10/11.3.2010. It was further submitted that the main reason for delay in submitting the papers was due to the refusal by the Ops No. 3 and 4 on 3.12.2009 and 11.3.2010 to accept the pension claim. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of Ops No.1 and 2. It was pleaded that pension was to be fixed by Ops No. 3 and 4 and as such there was claim against the answering Ops. All other allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.          Separate reply was filed by OPs No.3 & 4 and submitted that the complainant was not entitled for compensation as claimed in the complaint because the complete pension papers were received by OP No.3 from OP No.1 on 6.4.2010. The same were processed in accordance with the provisions of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and the same were sent along with pension input data sheet to OP No.4 through registered post for issuing the pension payment order in favour of the complainant as the complainant desired his monthly pension through Punjab National Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh as the said area falls within the jurisdiction of OP No.4. The OP No.4 without any delay issued pension payment order vide PPO No. PB/CHD/00017848 on 21.6.2010 along with arrears. So, there was no delay on the part of answering Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.       The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

6.       The learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP  No.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with litigation costs of Rs.5,500/-. The OP No.1 was directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which they would be liable to pay the entire amount along with penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the filing of the complaint i.e. 24.2.2010 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint against OPs No. 2 to 4 with no order as to costs. It was further directed that OP No.1 would be free to recover the above said amount along with interest and costs from the salary of the officer(s)/official(s) due to whose inaction the matter was delayed, of course after giving notice to the concerned employee(s) as required under the relevant service rules.

7.          Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the OPs No.1 and 2.  Sh.H.P.Verma, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellants, Sh.Vinod Kumar, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and Ms.Geet Sharma, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.

8.       In appeal, it is contended by the appellants (FCI) that the complainant attained the age of 58 years on 9.10.2007 whereas pension case of the complainant was received in the Zonal Office on 20/26.3.2008. However in the connected cases the APFC returned the documents on 3.12.2009 to FCI and APFC refused to accept pension papers. Therefore, on account of refusal of acceptance of documents, the appellant corporation cannot be held liable for any delay on the part of Ops No.3 and 4. It is submitted by the appellant that during the year 2004-2005 large number of employees of FCI had opted for VRS and large number of cases were received from North Zone. The corporation with the consent of RPFC, Delhi decided for decentralization of EPF work w.e.f. 1.4.2006. The RPFC, Noida started receiving pension cases from April, 2008 only from those employees who either attained the age of 58 years or have expired on or after 1.4.2006. Their office did not accept more than 20 cases and they verbally refused to accept pension cases. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum suffers from illegality as the complainant being an employee of FCI is not covered under the definition of Consumer as defined under the Act. The complaint was also liable to be dismissed being without jurisdiction as the complainant was not entitled for any interest as claimed in the complaint. There was no delay on the part of appellants. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint on the ground that the pension papers of the complainant remained pending with the appellants for about 25 months and were sent to OP No.3 on 3.4.2010. These observations are contrary to record and the complainant himself completed the formalities and submitted Form 10 D on 12.2.2008, whereas he retired on 31.10.2009 and the papers were forwarded to the Zonal Office on 26.3.2008. Thereafter these documents were referred to APFC, Noida and in this manner, the matter remained under consideration with the appellants and the Ops No.3 and 4. It was further submitted that various correspondences clearly establishes that the office of Ops No. 3 and 4 could not accept the pension claim of employees because of excess work load. In any case, there is no delay on the part of appellants. The learned District Forum without looking into real practical procedure has accepted the complaint on the basis of conjectures and surmises and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- as well as penal interest @ 12% p.a. in case the amount is not paid within 30 days to the complainant. The impugned order is harsh in nature and the learned District Forum failed to appreciate that delay, if any, on the part of either of the parties was disputed question of fact and was required to be settled by leading evidences. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be set aside.

9.       The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant argued that the complainant was working as Manager (Accounts) with Food Corporation of India (FCI) and retired on 31.10.2009. While in service, he was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme-1995 from 1.11.2007 on attaining the age of 58 years. Prior to his retirement, the complainant submitted all the requisite papers for the grant of pension, which was forwarded by appellant No.2/OP No.2 vide letter dated 26.5.2008 to appellant No.1/OP No.1 (FCI), who forwarded the same to respondent No.2/OP No.3 but despite lapse of two years, no response was received from the concerned Ops. Despite timely submission of the required papers with the authorities, neither the pension was released nor any reasons explained for withholding the same and due to non payment of pension for a long time, the respondent No.1/complainant suffered a great financial as well as irreparable loss. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be dismissed.

10.     The learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3/Ops No.3 & 4 (RPFC) argued that the complete pension papers were received by respondent No.2/OP No.3 from appellant No.1/OP No.1 on 6.4.2010 and the same were processed in accordance with the provisions of Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The same were sent along with pension input data sheet to respondent No.3/OP No.4 through registered post for issuing the pension payment order in favour of the complainant. The respondent No.3/OP No.4 without any delay issued pension payment order vide PPO No. PB/CHD/00017848 on 21.6.2010 along with arrears and as such there was no delay on its part.

11.     A perusal of the file shows that there is delay on the part of OP No.1 as it is an admitted fact that the pension case of the complainant was forwarded to OP No.1 vide letter dated 20/26.3.2008 (Annexure I) and it remained pending with the OP No.1 for about 25 months as the same was forwarded to OP No.3 on 3.4.2010 Annexure II. Thereafter OP No.3 kept the papers for about 3 months till the pension was released to the complainant. We do not find any force in the contention of OP No.1 that this delay in forwarding the pension case is due to the fault of OP No.3 who stopped accepting the pension papers of the employees on the ground that there was rush of work with them and they were unable to deal with the cases because there is nothing on file placed by the OP No.1 to prove that as to on what date and through which means the said papers were sent to OPs No. 3 and 4 before 3.4.2010 and OP No.3 has refused to accept these papers on the ground that there is a rush of work with them and they were unable to deal with the cases. The documents produced on file by OP No.1 i.e. letters dated 3.12.2009 and 10/11.3.2010 Annexure IV and the peon book Annexure V shows that it were issued well before the date when the pension papers of the complainant was submitted to OPs No. 3 and 4 vide Annexure II on 3.4.2010. Perusal of Annexure II clearly shows that there was a delay on the part of OP No.1 and not on the part of OPs No. 3 and 4 because the pension papers of the complainant were sent to OPs No.3 and 4 by OP No.1 after 25 months i.e. on 3.4.2010, whereas the OP No.1 has received these papers on 26.3.2008 from OP No.2. In our opinion, the OP No.1 has failed to prove that the pension papers of the complainant were ever sent to OP No.3 or they refused to accept the same. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the main delay in processing the pension case of the complainant was due to the fault of OP No.1 (FCI Noida) and not due to the fault of OPs No. 2 to 4. Therefore, the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint and directed the OP No.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation costs of Rs.5,500/-. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is just, fair and proper. No interference is called for. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

12.          Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                        

12^th January, 2011.