State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Regional Provident Fund ... vs Smt Anusaya Shivaji Tone on 7 June, 2023
1 (A/16/501)
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO.A/16/501
(Arisen out of Order dated 15/03/2016 passed by the District
Commission, Solapur in consumer complaint No. CC/14/259)
1. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, Regional Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
341, Bandra (E),
Mumbai 400 051.
2. Assistant Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, Regional Office,
R/o 165 A, Suravase Tower,
Railway Line,
Solapur 413 001.
3. Assistant Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, Regional Office,
Pune Cantonment Board Building,
Golibar Maidan,
Pune 411 001. Appellant(s)
versus
1. Smt.Anusaya Shivaji Tone
r/o Kidhabisari,
Tal. Sangola,
Dist. Solapur.
2. Government of India
(Notice send to Collector Solapur) Respondent(s)
BEFORE :
Mr.Justice S.P.Tavade, Hon'ble President
Mr.A.Z.Khwaja,Judicial Member
2 (A/16/501)
PRESENT:
For the
Appellant(s) : Advocate Amarnath Kanaki
For the
Respondent(s) : None present
ORDER
Dated-7th June, 2023 Per:- Mr.Justice S.P.Tavade, Hon'ble President-
[1] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Solapur in consumer complaint No. CC/14/259 dated 15/03/2016, original opponent has preferred this appeal. Parties to this appeal shall be called and referred as per their status in the original complaint. Complainant is resident of Sangola, District Solapur. Her husband Shivaji Tone was working as 'Bulk and Cargo Handling Majur (Mathadi Kamgar)', P & V Docks, Mumbai. He was member of Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension. He died on 28/05/1991. Accordingly, complainant was receiving family pension since death of her husband. Her PPO number was 2761. It was contended that the complainant was receiving pension regularly. But she did not receive enhanced pension between the period 01/01/1994 to 31/08/2000. Amount of the enhanced pension was Rs.49,763/-. It should have been paid in the year 2000. It was contended that on 09/10/2000 complainant received letter from opponent stating that the opponent has paid amount of enhanced pension. But the amount was not credited in the account of the complainant.
3 (A/16/501) Therefore, she issued legal notice to the opponent. They replied the notice but failed to pay the enhanced pension to the complainant for the period between 01/01/1994 to 31/08/2000 amounting to Rs.49,763/-. Hence, she claimed amount of enhanced pension alongwith interest, costs and compensation.
[2] Notice was issued to the opponent. Accordingly opponent No.1 appeared and filed written version wherein the allegations made in the complaint were denied. It was contended that the opponent No.1 processed the pension papers of the complainant and pension was being paid to the complainant. But in the year 1999 the office of the opponent No.1 was shifted at Solapur. Hence, all papers and files were transmitted to the Solapur office. It was contended that the pension papers of the complainant were transferred to the Solapur office. Therefore, opponent No.1 was not concerned with the enhanced pension and its payment.
[3] Opponent No.2 appeared and filed written version wherein it was contended that the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was contended that the complaint was filed at belated stage and it was barred by limitation. It was contended that that husband of the complainant was resident of Mumbai and he died at Mumbai. Therefore, the complaint should have been filed in the District Commission, Mumbai. It was contended that the opponent No.3 has deposited amount of enhanced pension in the account of the complainant in the year 2001. Therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
4 (A/16/501) [4] Opponent Nos.3 and 4 were served with the notice. But they failed to appear. Hence, complaint proceeded exparte against them.
[5] Complainant and opponents filed their affidavits of evidence and documents. On going through the pleadings and documents on record, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opponent Nos.1 to 3 to pay the interest on enhanced pension amounting to Rs.49,763/- @9% p.a. from 09/10/2000 till 20/04/2015. The District Commission also awarded compensation and costs in the sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Said order is under challenge.
[6] Heard learned Advocate for the appellant/opponent. Advocate for the appellant/opponent submitted that the District Commission as well as the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the issue was in respect of family pension. He relied in the ratio laid down in the case of Dr.Jagmittar Saln Bhagat & ors versus Dir. Health Services, Haryana & ors., wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, " 16. In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for 5 (A/16/501) redressal of any his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act." In the present case, husband of the complainant was Mathadi worker. He was not government employee. He was in private sector, working as 'Bulk and Cargo Handling Majur (Mathadi Kamgar)', P & V Docks, Mumbai. Therefore, the ratio cited supra is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
[7] It is admitted fact that the husband of the complainant was working as 'Bulk and Cargo Handling Majur (Mathadi Kamgar)', P & V Docks, Mumbai. He was member of Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension. He died on 28/05/1991. Accordingly, complainant was receiving family pension since death of her husband. The dispute between the complainant and the opponent was that the opponent has failed to pay the arrears of enhanced pension for the period between the period 01/01/1994 to 31/08/2000 amounting to Rs.49,763/-. There is no dispute about the amount of arrears of pension. It is the case of the opponent No.2 that the amount of arrears of pension was paid to the complainant on 09/10/2000. Complainant has produced on record her passbook wherein there is no entry of payment of arrears of pension amounting to Rs.49,763/-. So the case of the opponent that arrears of pension was paid to the complainant was not proved. No document is produced on record by the opponent showing that the arrears of enhanced pension was credited in the account of the complainant in the year 2000. Therefore, the complainant was entitled for the arrears of enhanced pension. It is also admitted by the complainant that she received amount of enhanced pension on 20/04/2015. So 6 (A/16/501) she is entitled for the interest on delayed payment of enhanced pension.
[8] The District Commission has rightly held that the complainant is entitled for the interest on arrears of enhanced pension from 09/10/2000 to 20/04/2015 as she was kept out of that amount over the said period. The District Commission has granted compensation and costs in the sum of Rs.2,000/-. Order passed by the District Commission is correct, legal and valid. There is no need to interfere in the findings of the District Commission. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order-
ORDER
1] Appeal is dismissed.
2] No order as to costs.
Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties.
[Justice S.P.Tavade] President [A.Z.Khwaja] Judicial Member rsc