State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Of Maharastra, Thru Tahsildar, ... vs Shri Anant Vishnu Joshi & Anr. on 9 February, 2012
A-306/2007
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/266
(Arisen out of Order Dated 26/10/2009 in Case
No. 87/2009 of District Raigarh)
1. STATE OF MAHARASTRA
THRU TAHSILDAR,
POLADPUR DIST RAIGAD
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SHRI ANANT VISHNU
JOSHI
R/O DHANASHRI APT
BLOCK NO 6,2ND FLOOR MANDLIK PATH HANUMAN ALI TAL PEN
RAIGAD
2. DIRECTOR, ACCOUNTS
& TREASURIES
BARRACK
NO.115,116,FREE PRESS JOURNAL MARG,NARIMAN PT,MUMBAI
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar
PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Ms.Shraddha Chavan-Residential Naib Tahsildar, Poladpur for the Appellant.
Respondent no.1 -Mr.A.V.Joshi
present in person.
ORDER
Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Honble Member This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 26/10/2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigad in consumer complaint No.87/2009.
2. The complainant had filed a consumer complaint alleging that there was inordinate delay in sanctioning the pension. According to the complainant when he was entitled for a commutation of `1,78,950/-, Accountant General, Maharashtra State, Mumbai had sanctioned a commuted pension of `1,63,489/- only. The complainant alleged that the opponent No.1 is responsible for this delay and hence, considering this as deficiency in service, he has filed a consumer complaint praying his pension commutation order be considered from 23/06/2001; opponent be directed to pay an amount of `15,461/-
which he has not received because of deficiency on the part of opponents and interest of `20,000/-;
`1,000/- as costs and `20,000/- for financial loss; `40,000/- for mental agony.
3. Opponent No.2 remained absent and hence, ex-parte order was passed against opponent No.2. Opponent No.1 filed its written version contending that after sanctioning of the salaries as per 5th Pay Commission, Government has started work of pay verification from 04/05/2000. In respect of complainant, 5th Pay verification of the complainant should have been completed by Head Office before his retirement.
However, Head Office initiated the work of pay verification in respect of complainant at the time of his retirement. As the complainants Service Book was misplaced, the duplicate Service Book was prepared on 15/06/2001 and thereafter, the Service Book was sent to the Pay Verification Unit. Similarly, his Service Book was also not complete. They have received his completed Service Book on 10/05/2002 and they have completed the pay verification on 17/12/2002. There is no delay on their part. They have denied that there is loss of `15,461/-
in the commutation of pension of the complainant and hence, they prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after going through the complaint, written version of opponent No.1, evidence filed by both the parties and pleadings of the parties arrived at the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opponent No.2 and directed that complainant be paid an amount of `18,553/-
towards shortfall of pension along with interest, `5,000/- for mental agony and `10,000/- as costs within 45 days, failing which there will be an interest of 8% p.a. till realization of the amount.
5. We heard Ms.Shradha Chavan, Authorised Representative for the appellant and respondent No.1 in person.
6. Admittedly, respondent No.1 retired from service on 23/06/2001. A.R. for the appellant contended that Service Book of the respondent No.1/complainant was not up-to-date and respondent No.1 was himself negligent in maintaining his Service Book. Similarly, his Service Book was misplaced and the appellant had to prepare duplicate Service Book. As there was no pay verification by the Pay Verification Unit, the matter was referred to the Pay Verification Unit and after pay verification, the appellant submitted the proposal to the A.G. and A.G. has sanctioned the pension. We further observed that respondent No.1 has received his commutation of the pension amount from the retirement date i.e. 23/06/2001 to 17/06/2003. The appellant has drawn our attention to the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension Commutation) Rules 1984, Rule No.6(1) and contended that he had filed his commutation of pension application in December 2002 and he himself is late in filing the application and hence, respondent No.1 himself is responsible for making proper application.
7. From the appeal compilation, we observed that it is also a duty of respondent No.1 to see that his pension papers are fully prepared in time.
From perusal of the papers we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has erred in coming to the conclusion that there is deficiency on the part of the appellant. The observation made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is not maintainable and the order passed is also not maintainable. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
-: ORDER :-
1.
Appeal is allowed.
The impugned order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is quashed and set aside. Consequently, consumer complaint No.87/2009 stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 9th February 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member dd