DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:127 of 2010] Date of Institution : 03.03.2010 Date of Decision : 09.05.2011 ---------------------------------------------- Sh. Lal Chand Bali, Ex. GI(D) son of Late Sh. Bhagat Ram resident of House No.504/1, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. Zonal Manager (North), Food Corporation of India, Plot No.A2A, A2B, Sector 24, Noida (U.P.). 2. General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bays 34-38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh. 3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Nidhi Bhawan, A2 C, Sector 24, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida (U.P.). 4. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued By:Sh. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Z. K. Zakhmi, Advocate for OPs No.1 and 2. Sh. R. K. Syal, Advocate for OPs No.3 and 4. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Lal Chand Bali has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs: - i) To hold and declare OPs guilty of deficiency in service as per the provisions of the Act. ii) OPs be directed to settle the pension case of complainant along with interest @18% per annum thereon from the date of eligibility of pension till payment of the same. iii) OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony suffered by him. iv) OPs be directed to pay legal expenses to the complainant. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was an employee of Food Corporation of India (hereinafter to be referred as FCI) and was posted as Assistant Grade I (D) in the office of General Manager, FCI at the time of superannuation. He was superannuated on 31.8.2009. According to the complainant, he was the member of Employees Pension Scheme having CPF No.21453 and F.P.S. Account No.15104 and was contributing for the said scheme. He was entitled for the pension under Employees Pension Scheme 1995 from 1.9.2007 on attaining the age of 58 years. It is further pleaded by the complainant that he submitted all the requisite papers for the grant of pension under the said scheme, which were completed in all respects. The said papers were forwarded by the Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Punjab to Assistant General Manager (CPF), FCI Zonal Office (North), Noida vide letter No.A(5403) 72/5524 dated 26.11.2007. The Zonal office then forwarded the family pension case to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida vide letter No.CPF-VI/EPS/ZO 2008-2009 Pb/F/57 RPFC, Noida/437/1495 dated 8.11.2008. Since then, the complainant has not received any response from any of the OP and his pension has not been commenced so far. Due to non payment of the pension, the complainant is suffering irreparable loss and is facing financial difficulty. Non payment of pension also caused him harassment, mental agony and pain. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the joint reply filed by OPs No.1 and 2, it has been averred that there is no delay on the part of OPs No.1 and 2. The delay, if any, is due to procedural formalities. Therefore, OPs No.1 and 2 were not liable to pay any interest or compensation to the complainant. According to these OPs, the delay is because of the conduct of the complainant himself. He submitted Form 10D and other papers in the month on 7.11.2007. The said papers were sent to Deputy General Manager (CPF), FCI Zonal Office (North), Noida vide letter dated 26.11.2007, who after completing all the formalities forwarded the same to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida vide letter dated 8.11.2008 but the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida returned the pension papers to FCI Zonal Office, Noida vide letter dated 10.9.2009 on the plea of non fulfilling of the criteria for settlement as per EPFO Head Office letter No.Pension/4/(197)/96/KR/3268 dated 17.4.2009. It is averred that the Zonal Office, Noida after due process, sent the papers again to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida vide letter dated 12.10.2009. Thus, according to OPs No.1 and 2, the delay is only on the part of OPs No.3 and 4 as they returned the papers with frivolous objections. Therefore, according to these OPs, there is no delay on their part, so, the complaint deserves dismissal qua them. 4. In the joint reply filed by OPs No.3 and 4, it has been averred that the pension papers of the complainant were received for the first time on 26.11.2008. However, the claim submitted by OP No.1 was not complete in all respect as the details of contribution were lacking in the same. The said papers were returned to OP No.1 on 10.9.2009, which were again resubmitted by it on 12.10.2009 but again without the mandatory details. Therefore, in order to avoid the hardship of the complainant, the claim was handed over to the officials of OP No.1 in person on 29.1.2010 with the request to complete it, so that the claim could be considered. Thereafter, on receipt of the pension papers complete in all respects in the month of March 2010, the claim was immediately processed in accordance with the provisions of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and a letter along with input data sheet was sent to OP No.4 vide letter dated 18.3.2010 for issuing pension payment order in favour of the complainant. In these circumstances, according to OPs No.3 and 4, there is no delay on their part. In these circumstances, it has been prayed that the complaint qua OPs no.3 and 4 be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully. 6. Annexure ‘A’ is the office order dated 31.8.2009 whereby the complainant was superannuated with effect from the said date. Annexure ‘B’ is the copy of letter dated 15.11.2007 written by Assistant General Manager (Administration) to the Deputy General Manager (CPF), FCI Zonal Office (North), Noida whereby the pension papers of the complainant, which were complete in all respect, were sent to it for onward forwarding to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida. Annexure ‘C’ is a copy of letter dated 8.11.2008 whereby the said papers were sent to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida by the Manager (CPF/PENSION). 7. According to OPs No.1 and 2, the said papers were forwarded to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida but the said office returned the pension papers to FCI Zonal Office, Noida vide letter dated 10.9.2009 on the plea of non-fulfilling the criteria for settlement as per EPFO Head Office letter dated 17.4.2009. 8. On the contrary, in the reply filed by OPs No.3 and 4, it has been categorically mentioned that the papers were not received prior to 26.11.2008 and the same were received by OPs No.3 and 4 for the first time on 26.11.2008. As the papers were not complete in all respects, the same were returned to OP No.1 on 10.9.2009, who resubmitted the claim without doing the needful on 12.10.2009 but again the same was handed over to the officials of OP No.1 on 29.1.2010 for completion. Thereafter, on receipt of the said papers complete in all respects, the case was processed immediately. The assertion of OPs No.3 and 4 that the papers were handed over to the official of OP No.1 by hand cannot be accepted. Thus, admittedly, the papers complete in all respects were received by OP No.4 from OP No.3 in the month of March 2010 i.e. 18.3.2010 and the case was finally settled for payment of pension on 3.5.2010. 9. From the correspondence on record, which was exchanged between the OPs, it is very much clear that initially OP No.2 took almost a year to forward the pension papers of the complainant to the OP No.1 i.e. Zonal Office of OPs No.1 and 2, which were sent on 8.11.2008 vide letter (Annexure II). To our mind, it is not understood as to why the pension papers of the complainant were kept in abeyance by the officials of OP No.2 for so long when the same were submitted with them by the complainant on 7.11.2007. Simultaneously, OPs No.1 and 2 were also deficient in sending the incomplete papers to OPs No.3 and 4, who returned the said papers twice i.e. on 10.9.2009 and 29.1.2010 vide letters (Annexures R-6 and R-8) respectively for completion of the required formalites. 10. Deciding the negligence, if any, on the part of OPs No.3 and 4 in dealing with the pension papers of the complainant, we are of the opinion that they are also deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. The pension papers were firstly received by OPs No.3 from OP No.1 on 26.11.2008 and since, then they have delayed the settlement of the claim on one pretext or the other and returned the case of the complainant twice as already observed in the earlier paragraphs. Annexure R-2 is the copy of letter dated 10.9.2009 whereby the claim of the complainant was returned to OPs No.1 by 2. This document clearly proves that the claim was returned after almost ten months from the date of its receipt, which is definitely a glaring deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.3 and 4. If there was any objection or document was required to be submitted from the side of OPs No.1 and 2, that could be done within a few days or so but OPs No.3 and 4 took an unexplained long period for settling the claim of the complainant, which was ultimately settled by them on 3.5.2010 by issuing Pension Payment Order, which was received by OP No.4 on 16.4.2010. Thus, it took almost 3 ½ years collectively for the OPs to settle the pension claim of the complainant, which is a gross deficiency in service on the part of all the OPs. 11. It is matter of great concern that even in the matter of pension, the behaviour of officials of OPs No.1 to 4 is so negligent even towards their own employees. Admittedly, the pension has since been released to the complainant and in our view, he has undergone immense agony and harassment at the hands of the OPs for which, OPs are liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency in service on their part. 12. 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. 13. 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.03.03.2010 till the date of actual payment besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 14. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 9th May 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Ad/-
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
