State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sukan Kaur @ Sukhan Devi vs The Manager (Depot) Food Corporation Of ... on 20 March, 2013
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1826 of 2011
Date of institution: 14.12.2011
Date of decision : 20.3.2013
Sukan Kaur @ Sukhan Devi aged 43 years Wd/o Nanak Chand, resident
of Near Hanuman Mandir, Sunam, District Sangrur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Manager (Depot) Food Corporation of India, Food Storage
Depot, Sunam.
2. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer,
Sangrur.
3. The Executive Director (North Zone), Food Corporation of India,
Zonal Office (North) A-2A, A-2B, Sector 24, Noida (UP).
4. The Assistant General manager (CPF-L), Food Corporation of
India,, Head Quarters, CPF Division, Barakhambha Lane, New
Delhi - 110001
5. Employee Provident Fund Organization, through its Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Delhi (North
Bhavishaya Nidhi Bhava, Plot 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-
110052.
6. Employees Provident Fund Organization through its Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Bhavishaya
Nidhi Bhavan, Urban Estate Phase-1, Near TV Tower, Bhatinda.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated
17.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For respondents No.1 to 4: Ms. Chetna, Advocate for
Sh. Santokh Singh, Advocate
For respondents No.5 & 6: Sh. R.K. Syal, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant-Sukan Kaur(hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 17.10.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur(hereinafter First Appeal No. 1826 of 2011 2 called the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the appellant was partly accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that husband of the appellant, namely, Nanak Chand joined the service of Food Corporation of India on 1.1.1995 and CPF/FPS A/c No. 21721 was allotted to him on 1.2.1995. The husband of the appellant Nanak Chand died on 7.12.2004, who was working at that time as handling labourer at F.S.D., F.C.I., Sunam. Family Pension Scheme(in short 'FPS') A/c No. DL/2271/119649 was allotted by the respondents to the deceased. The deceased had been contributed in the said account through the respondents who had been deducting the amount of contribution towards the above mentioned funds from the salary of deceased Nanak Chand. After the death of husband of the appellant, the appellant being the nominee of CPF Account as well as being legal heir/widow submitted the claim with respondents No. 5 & 6 within one month from the death of her husband as per the rules but neither the amount was paid to the appellant nor details of calculations have been provided to the appellant. The pension was also not released to the appellant despite lapse of six years despite all the formalities were completed by the appellant for the release of the pensionery benefits. The appellant approached the concerned authorities many times but all in vain and the grievance of the appellant was not redressed by the concerned authorities. Legal notice was also served and information under RTI was also sought but the claim was not settled. Complaint was filed by the appellant before the District Forum praying that the details and calculations of the above mentioned account of her husband may be provided to her and arrears of family pension and other benefits may be released to the appellant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum as per approved rates. First Appeal No. 1826 of 2011 3
3. Upon notice, none was appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1, as such, respondent No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide interim order dated 17.1.2011.
4. Upon notice, respondents No. 2 to 4 filed the reply by taking legal objection that the complaint was not maintainable, the appellant did not fall under the definition of 'consumer', District Forum had no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint, the appellant was estopped to file the present complaint due to her own act and conduct, the complaint was filed with malafide intention only to harass the respondents and bad for mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was admitted that husband of the appellant was employee of F.C.I. and died on 7.12.2004. It was further pleaded that benevolent fund of Rs. 15,000/-, group insurance dues of Rs. 60,500/- and gratuity of Rs. 35,453/- had already been paid to the appellant. It was also admitted that legal notice was served by the appellant through her counsel Sh. Jatinder Sharma, which was replied by the FCI District Office, Sangrur vide letter dated 23.5.2009 and in the said reply, the amount already paid was also mentioned. It was further pleaded that payment of CPF of Nanak Chand deceased had been accorded by CPF Division (North Zone), Noida vide letter dated 7.1.2011 and after receiving the due sanction, the Area Manager, District Office FCI Sangrur passed office orders for the release of CPF dues of Rs. 3,18,889/- to the complainant, which was received by the appellant against the valid receipt and nothing was due against the answering respondents. It was also submitted that the appellant herself was failed to submit the complete pension documents, which was also admitted by her vide her letter dated 13.1.2011, however, the FCI, Sangrur vide letter dated 3.1.2011 had requisitioned the necessary family pension documents from the appellant so as to enable the FCI Sangrur for the submission of the same with the competent authority. The appellant First Appeal No. 1826 of 2011 4 submitted the same with Depot Manager, FCI Sunam on 25.1.2011 after filing the complaint. The Depot Manager, Sunam immediately forwarded to the District Office, Sangrur and Area Manager, Sangrur forwarded the same to the AGM (CPF), Noida vide letter dated 27.1.2011 for further necessary action, as such, there was no delay on the part of the answering respondents. The detail of the amounts had already been provided to the appellant. All other allegations were denied and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. Upon notice, reply was also filed on behalf of respondents No. 5 & 6 by taking preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum as no cause of action had arisen to the appellant. On merits, it was admitted that the deceased Nanak Chand was the Member of the E.P.F. Scheme 1971/Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and his contribution was maintained by the answering respondents. It was further pleaded that as per the provisions of para No. 17A of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, the appellant had to submit pension claim form - 10D (duly completed in all aspect) by herself or through her employer in the office of the answering respondents and after that the claim was to be settled within one month from the date of its receipt by the answering respondents but no Claim Form No. 10D was received by the answering respondents whereas the Advocate of the appellant was also informed regarding the submitting of Monthly Pension Claim No. 10D(duly completed and attested in all aspect) by the appellant with the answering respondents but the requisite documents were not received by the answering respondents till the filing of the reply to the complaint, as such, the complaint was pre-mature and liable to be dismissed.
6. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, partly accepted the complaint and respondents No. 1 to 4 were found deficient in service and negligence First Appeal No. 1826 of 2011 5 in delaying the payment of CPF and submission of the pension papers to respondents No. 5 & 6, as such, respondents No. 1 to 4 were directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the appellant within 60 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
7. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the appeal is filed by the appellant on the grounds that as per Civil Service Rules, it is mandatory upon the Department Authorities to release the pensionery benefits within three months from the date of retirement but the pensionery benefits were not released to the appellant within three months as per the rules and, as such, the appellant is entitled for the interest @ 18% per annum as per the Civil Services Rules, the appellant is a poor widow lady and due to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, she has suffered a lot and has been deprived of the dues for which she was otherwise legally entitled, as such, the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified and the appellant is entitled for the grant of interest @ 18% per annum for the delay of payment of CPF amount as well as amount under family pension scheme.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. There is no dispute that the husband of the appellant was employee of respondents No. 1 to 4 who died on 7.12.2004 and the benefits like group insurance, gratuity etc. were not paid by respondents No. 1 to 4 to the appellant in the prescribed time as per the Civil Services Rules. In para No. 3(c) of the reply to the complaint by respondents No. 1 to 4 had submitted that Rs. 15,000/- of benevolent fund, Rs. 60,500/- of Group Insurance dues and Rs. 35,453/- of Gratuity had already been paid to the appellant.
First Appeal No. 1826 of 2011 6
10. We have perused the reply Ex. R-2 to the notice served by the appellant through her Advocate Sh. Jatinder Sharma. In the said reply, it was mentioned that Sh. Nanak Chand was having CPF Account No. 21721 with respondents No. 1 to 4 as under:-
"The following payments has been made:-
1. Benevolent Fund Rs. 15,000/-
2. Group Insurance Dues Rs. 60,500/- dated 27.5.2006
3. Gratuity Rs. 35,453/- on 15.9.2005
4. CPF Dues Not applied"
11. It was also requested to direct your client to submit six sets of papers complete in all respect through Manager (D) with the forwarding letter of Manager (D), the FCD Sunam to Z.O. (M), pension.
12. We have also perused letter Ex. R-3 dated 7.1.2011, which was written by Manager, CPF-III to Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sangrur regarding the sanction of final payment of CPF dues against death on 7.12.2004. The relevant portion of the letter is reproduced:-
"Sub : Sanction of Final Payment of CPF dues against Death on 7/12/2004 Ref : Your/Our Letter No. : Dated :
Sir, I am to inform you that trustees, FCI, CPF, New Delhi have accorded sanction of the CPF accumulation as per details given below:
Name & Deisgnation CPF A/C No. Cor. Cont Memb. Subs Total
(Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)
NANAK CHAND H/L 21721 Gross 118860.00 200029.00 318889.00
(Rs. THREE LAC EIGHTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE ONLY.)"
13. But in the said letter, against the reference no letter No. and no date is mentioned by the Manager, CPF-III, which was allegedly written by the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sangrur for the sanction of final payment of CPF dues of deceased Nanak Chand to the appellant. Not mentioning the letter No. and date in the sanctioned letter shows that the CPF dues of the deceased were sanctioned and paid to the appellant First Appeal No. 1826 of 2011 7 with the delay of near about 6½ years i.e. after deducting three months i.e. prescribed period for the payment of the same.
14. Respondents No. 1 to 4 in its reply nowhere mentioned that the requisite documents regarding the payment of CPF dues were not submitted by the appellant with respondents No. 1 to 4 and no reason for the delay of the payment of the above amount was mentioned in the reply. Only it was pleaded that after receiving the letter dated 7.1.2011 from CPF Division, North Zone, Noida vide which the CPF amount of Rs. 3,18,889/- was sanctioned, paid to the appellant vide cheque No. 217134 dated 18.1.2011.
15. We have also perused the application Ex. R-6, which was made by the appellant to Depot Manager, FCI, FSD, Sunam dated 13.1.2011 vide which the appellant had submitted that she could not submit the pensionery documents as she was known as "Sukhna Kaur @ Sukhna Devi". It was further pleaded that she will submit the same for the release of the pensionery benefits. So from the application of the appellant it is proved beyond doubt that for the release of the pension, documents were not submitted by the appellant herself, as such, on the submission of the same the Pension Payment Order dated 9.8.2011 was released by respondents No. 5 & 6. So we are of the view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondents No. 5 & 6.
16. As such, we are of the view that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents No. 1 to 4 for not sanctioning of the CPF dues and payment of the same to the appellant for such a long period when she is a poor widow of IVth Class Employee.
17. The order of the District Forum for the payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant(appellant) by respondents No. 1 to 4 is on lower side and not sufficient and liable to be modified.
First Appeal No. 1826 of 2011 8
18. As per the above discussion, the order of the District Forum is modified and respondents No. 1 to 4 are directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum after three months of the death of Nanak Chand till payment of Rs. 3,18,889/- and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses of the complaint as well as of the appeal.
19. The counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 has submitted that Rs. 10,000/- had already been paid by respondents No. 1 to 4 to the appellant to comply with the order of the District Forum. If Rs. 10,000/- has already been paid then respondents No. 1 to 4 pay the interest to the appellant as ordered above.
20. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.3.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
March 20, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member