State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Regional Pf. vs Ram Nayak Tiwari on 7 August, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 07.08.2013 First Appeal No. 12/1010 1.
Regional Provident Fund Appellant Commissioner(North), 28, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-110052.
2.Central Provident Fund Commissioner 14, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
Versus Sh.
Ram Nayak Tiwari Respondent S/o Late Sh. Brij Nath Tiwari, R/o E-1/52, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President
1. The complainant, an employee of the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited(VSNL), who was entitled to pension on 15.7.2007 after attaining the age of 58 years, was released pension by the appellant OP from 9.9.2009. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum against the OP Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, alleging negligence and deficiency on its part in this behalf, claiming compensation of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as costs.
2. The OP opposed the claim and filed the written statement alleging therein that the pension papers by VSNL the employer of the complainant were received by the OP on 18.12.2008 at their office at Bombay who was obliged under law to release the pension within 30 days therefrom, but who released the pension on 01.07.2008. The OP alleged that as provided in Section 17-A of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 that in case the OP is found deficient and does not settle the claim within 30 days from the receipt of the papers, the OP was only liable to pay interest for the delayed period @ 12% p.a., accordingly, the OP was liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for a period of five months 14 days.
3. On consideration of evidence of both the parties the District Consumer Forum held the OP negligent and deficient, inasmuch as releasing the pension after a period of one year and 55 days, and directed the OP to pay the complainant Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for pain and agony and Rs. 5,000/- as costs of litigation.
4. That is what brings the appellant OP in appeal before this Commission.
5. We have heard Shri Rajesh Manchanda, counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person.
6. A perusal of the record unravels that though the employer VSNL sent the pension papers to the appellant on 14.11.2007 which are said to have been received at the appellants office at Bombay on 18.12.2007, and the OP as provided in the law was obliged to release the pension within 30 days i.e. by 17.01.2008, but the OP delayed the pension by 5 months and 14 days hence the OP was guilty for this delay and as contemplated in Section 17-A of the Scheme of EP, 1995 was liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% p.a. for a period of 5 months 14 days to the complainant. The Trial Forum committed a manifest error while awarding compensation to the complainant for the reason that the above provision in the Act itself provided for awarding of interest in case of delay in release of the pension, with the result, the order of the Trial Forum is modified, and appellant OP will pay to the respondent complainant interest @ 12% p.a. on the arrears of Rs. 58,439/- from 15.07.2007 to May, 2008 in place of compensation amount and will also pay the litigation costs. With this modification in the order of the Forum, the appeal of the appellant stands dismissed.
7. FDR, if any deposited, be released in favour of the appellant after obtaining proper receipt and identification, which be kept on record.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President ysc