Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals bearing No.151 of 2011 titled as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & another Vs Vinod Kumar Chandra & Ors and No.203 of 2011 titled as Zonal Manager (North), Food Corporation of India & another Vs Vinod Kumar Chandra & Ors, against the order dated 5.5.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint, in the following manner; “In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, which he suffered due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In addition to this, OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing OPs shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.26.02.2010 till the date of actual payment besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was posted as Depot Manager in the office of the General Manager, Food Corporation of India (hereinafter to be called as FCI) at the time of superannuation, on 20.2.2009. He was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme having CPF No.10531 and F.P.S. Account No.7521. He was contributing to the said scheme. Accordingly, he was entitled to pension under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, with effect from 1.10.2007, on attaining the age of 58 years. It was stated that the complainant submitted the requisite papers, complete in all respects, for the grant of pension, under the said scheme. These papers were forwarded by the Regional Office, FCI, Punjab, Chandigarh, to the Deputy General Manager (CPF), FCI Zonal Office (North), Noida, vide letter dated 28.7.2008. It was further stated that since then, the complainant had not received any response from any of the OPs. It was further stated that the complainant had not been granted pension. Due to the non-payment of pension, the complainant was facing financial difficulty and mental agony and harassment. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. OP Nos.1& 2, Zonal Manager(North) FCI, Noida, and General Manager, FCI, Chandigarh, in their joint reply, stated that there was no delay on their part. It was further stated that the delay, if any, was on account of procedural formalities. It was further stated that they were not liable to pay any interest to the complainant. It was further stated that the delay was on account of the conduct of the complainant himself as he submitted Form 10D in the month of July,2008, whereas, he was required to submit the same before attaining the age of 58 years. It was further stated that the pension papers were sent to the Deputy General Manager (CPF), FCI Zonal Office (North), Noida, vide letter dated 28.7.2008, who after completing all the formalities, forwarded the same, to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida OP No.3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida refused to accept the pension papers, as per the remarks in the Dak Book. It was further stated that the said papers were finally sent to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida vide letter dated 11.11.2009. It was further stated that, on account of delay, in submitting the pension papers by the complainant, and refusal to accept the same, by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner office, on 23.4.2009, delay occurred, in the settlement of pension. It was denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. OPs No.3 and 4, in their joint written reply, stated that for the first time, the pension papers of the complainant were received on 11.11.2009, which were not complete in all respects. In order to avoid hardship to the complainant, the claim papers were handed over to the officials of OP No.1, in person, on 9.2.2010, with the request to complete the same, so that the claim could be considered. It was further stated that on receipt of the pension papers again, the claim was immediately processed, in accordance with the provisions of Employees Pension Scheme 1995, and a letter alongwith input data sheet, was sent to OP No.4, on 17.3.2010, for issuance of Pension Payment Order, in favour of the complainant. It was further stated that there was no delay on the part of OP NOs.3 & 4. It was further stated that, no doubt, OP Nos.1 and 2 produced, on record, the photocopies of letters dated 3.12.2009, 11.3.2010 and Dak Register in support of their plea regarding refusal to accept the pension claim by OP No.3, yet the same were never received by them, but had been prepared later on, by OP NOs.1 & 2, to save their skin and cover up their negligence . It was further stated that false and frivolous documents were prepared by OP NOs.1 & 2, with a view to misguide the Consumer Fora, and shift their burden on to OP Nos.3 and 4. It was denied that OP Nos.3 & 4 were deficient, in rendering service. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid two appeals, were filed by the appellants/OPs. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants/OP Nos.1 & 2, in appeal No.203 of 2011, submitted that the complainant himself was at fault, in submitting the pension papers, which were not complete in all respects, very late. He further submitted that since the complainant himself, delayed the submission of papers, the appellants could not be blamed for any delay, which occurred on account of completion of official formalities. He further submitted that the appellants dealt with the pension case of the complainant, as soon as, the same was received, in their office, and the District Forum was wrong, in fastening the liability upon them. 10. The Counsel for the appellants, in appeal No.151 of 2011 submitted that as soon as, the papers complete in all respects, were received by the appellants, they took no time in settling the claim. She further submitted that the appellants were wrongly held liable. 11. The Counsel for the complainant/respondent, submitted that there was gross deficiency, in service, on the part of the appellants, as a result whereof, inordinate delay was caused in settling the claim of the complainant. 12. It is evident from annexure A, that the complainant, retired on 30.9.2009, on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Annexure B is a copy of the letter dated 28.7.2008 vide which the Deputy General Manager(Regional Office), FCI, Chandigarh sent the family pension case of the complainant, complete in all respects, to the Deputy General Manager(CPF), FCI, Zonal Office(North) Noida, UP, for onward submission of the same to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida OP No.3. Since, the pension papers, complete in all respects, were submitted to the Regional Office at Chandigarh, by the complainant, which forwarded the same to Zonal Office of FCI at Noida, the said office was required to deal with the same immediately. On the other hand, it is evident that they submitted/resubmitted the said pension papers to OP Nos.3 & 4, on 11.11.2009 i.e. after a period of 13½ months. OP Nos.1 & 2, thus, sat over the matter, without considering the plight of the complainant, a retired employee of the FCI. Why they sat over the pension papers for 13½ months before submitting the same to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, is not satisfactorily explained. No doubt, a plea was taken, by the appellants that the pension papers were refused to be received by OP Nos.3 & 4 prior to 11.11.2009, and remarks, in that regard, were given on the dak book. No document, showing that OP Nos.3 & 4 refused to accept the papers, was placed on record. Even the remarks on the dak book, vide which the alleged refusal was made by OP Nos. 3 & 4, are not legible. Nothing can be made out, from such remarks, that OP Nos.3 & 4, allegedly refused to accept the pension papers of the complainant. Reliance was placed on annexures IV and V by the appellants, to show that the reminders, were issued to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. However, the mode of despatch of these reminders , is not mentioned. Copies of the entries of the despatch register, were also not placed, on record, showing that actually these reminders were issued to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. On the other hand, OP NOs.3 & 4, categorically denied that, these reminders, were received by them. On the other hand, these reminders apparently were prepared later on, just with a view to cover up their lapse, by OP NOs.1 & 2. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that OP Nos.1 & 2, were definitely deficient, in rendering service, by delaying the submission of pension papers to OP Nos.3 & 4, for a period of 13 ½ months. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in appeal No.203 of 2011, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 13. Now coming to the liability of the appellants/OP Nos.3 & 4 in appeal No.151 of 2011, it may be stated here, that it was admitted by OP Nos. 3 & 4 that the papers were received by them on 11.11.2009, for the first time. The case of OP Nos.3 & 4 was to the effect that since the papers were not complete, in all respects, the same were handed over to the officials of OP No.1 on 9.2.2010. In case, the papers were not complete in all respects, then why the officials of OP Nos.3 & 4 sat over the same from 11.11.2009 to 9.2.2010 for a period of 3 months. Copy of the forwarding letter was not produced, on record, vide which these papers were handed over to the officials of OP No.1. In Government Offices, everything is done in black and white. Such a plea taken by OP Nos.3 & 4, does not appear to be correct. Why OP Nos.3 & 4 sat over the matter from 11.11.2009 to 16.4.2010 i.e. for a period of 5 months when, ultimately, the pension claim was settled, is not explained. Once the papers were received by OP NOs.3 & 4 on 11.11.2009, and there is no document, on record, to show that these were returned to the officials of OP No.1 on 9.2.10, it should not have taken a period of 5 months to settle the claim of the complainant. There was, therefore, deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of OP Nos.3 & 4, as they caused delay of 5 months in settling the pension of the complainant. 14. As stated above, the complainant had already retired. The pension may be the only only source of his livelihood. The complainant was an officer of the FCI. The officers/officials of OP Nos.1 to 4 did not take into consideration the plight of a retired employee. Their attitude was callous and indifferent, towards the settlement of claim of pension of a retired employee of the FCI. A lot of harassment and mental agony, occasioned to the complainant on account of the aforesaid acts of all the OPs. Not only this, the complainant, also suffered financial loss, as had the pension been released, in his favour, in time, he would have deposited the same in the bank and earned interest thereon, or utilized the same for meeting the necessary expenses. The District Forum was, thus, right, in holding that since the harassment and mental agony were caused to the complainant, at the hands of the OPs, he was liable to be compensated, though his pension claim was settled on 16.4.2010, after filing of the complaint. 15. It is settled principle of law that compensation should be just, fair and reasonable. In the instant case, in our considered opinion, the amount of Rs.50,000/- granted as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony, to the complainant, by the District Forum, cannot be said to be unreasonable, unfair and unjust. Compensation, granted in this case, is commensurate with the physical harassment and mental agony, caused to the complainant, at the hands of the OPs. 16. The order rendered by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 17. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals, bearing No.151 of 2011 and 203 of 2011, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same are dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/- in each appeal. The impugned order of the District Forum is upheld. 18. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 19. The file be consigned to Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
