State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohinder Kaur vs The Manager (Depot) , Food Corporation ... on 19 April, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
First Appeal No.593 of 2014
Date of Institution: 26.05.2014
Date of Reserve : 15.03.2017
Date of Decision : 19.04.2017
Mohinder Kaur widow of Mukhtiar Singh son of Sajjan Singh resident
of village Khadial, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.
......Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The Manager (Depot), Food Corporation of India, Food Storage
Depot, Sunam.
2. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office,
Sangrur.
3. The Assistant General Manager (Pension) Food Corporation of
India, Zonal Office (North), CPF Division, A-2A, A-2B, Sector 24,
Noida (UP)
4. The Assistant General Manager (CPF-L) Food Corporation of
India Head Quarters CPF Division 16-20, Barakhambha Lane,
New Delhi-110001.
5. Employees Provident Fund Organization, through its Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Delhi (North)
Bhavishaya Nidhi Bhavan, 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 -I, Near TV Tower,
Bathinda.
....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
17.02.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate
For respondents No.1to3: Sh.N.K.Zakhmi, Advocate
For respondent No.4 : Ex-parte
For respondents No.5&6: Sh.Ajay Singla, Advocate
HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM, MEMBER
1. The present appeal has been filed by the
appellant/complainant against the order dated 17.02.2014 passed by First Appeal No.593 of 2014 2 the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No.326, dated 15.07.2013, vide which the complaint was allowed by directing opposite parties No.1 to 4 to pay `10,000/- as compensation and to obtain the claim form from the complaint and to submit the same to opposite party no.5 and 6 for payment of the family pension alongwith arrears and penal interest as applicable as per Rules and Regulations of EPS Scheme. District Forum further directed opposite party No.5 & 6 to pay a sum of `10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Opposite parties No. 1 to 4 were further directed to provide details and calculations of the CPF Account No.21739 and Family Pension Scheme/Employee Pension Scheme account No.119667 including details of the amounts contributed and interest thereon to the complainant.
2. It would be apposite to mention at the outset that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
3. The complainant filed the complaint No.326 of 2013 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the opposite parties on the averments that her husband expired on 08.08.2000. At the time of death, he was an employee of opposite parties No.1 to 4. He was a member of Cumulative Provident Fund (in short 'CPF') Account No.21735 and Employees Pension Scheme (in short 'EPS') / Family Pension Scheme (FPS) Account No.119667 with the opposite parties.
4. It was averred that her late husband was contributing in these accounts maintained with opposite parties No.5 & 6 through First Appeal No.593 of 2014 3 opposite parties No.1 to 4. Opposite parties No.1 to 4 were deducting the sum from his salary towards contribution to the above mentioned accounts. It was averred that after the death of her husband she being the nominee of CPF account as well as his legal heir was eligible to get the payment of CPF as well as Family Pension under FPS account. It has been averred that she was eligible for the benefits of pension by way of Pension Payments order to be issued by opposite party No.5 and was also entitled for its benefits within one month from the date of death of her husband. It was contended that a partial sum of i.e. `1,33,483/- as amount of CPF was paid to her after a long delay on 27.07.2012. It was alleged that inordinate delay was caused due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties. It was averred that opposite party No.1 made deduction from the wages of her husband and further remitted to opposite party No.5 in a chain of offices. It was pleaded that she is entitled for the rest of amount of CPF lying in the account of her husband and interest on the said CPF amount which was paid belatedly and was also entitled for pension benefits alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum as opposite parties denied her the amount required for her daily needs. It was pleaded that non-furnishing of details, calculations and non-issuance of pension payment order and non-payment of rest of the amount lying in the said CPF account amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, as such, all the parties are jointly and severally liable and that directions be issued against the opposite parties to furnish the details and calculations of CPF account No.21739 and FPS/EPS account No.119667 including details of amounts contributed and interest accrued thereon; to First Appeal No.593 of 2014 4 release the family pension every month alongwith its arrears and interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereupon; to pay the balance sum lying in the said CPF account along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 08.09.2000 i.e. being one month after 08.08.2000 being the date of death of her husband till the date of actual payment; to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on part amount paid of CPF from 08.09.2000 till the date of its payment; to pay `50,000/- as compensation for harassment, agony and mental agony; to pay `11,000/- as litigation costs.
5. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 to 4 filed their reply and took legal objections that the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable as the complaint required a detailed evidence along with oral and documentary evidence and it would not be possible for the District Forum to proceed with the complaint in summary procedure; P.F. Scheme could not be held to be a service within the meaning of Section 2(i)(o) of the Act; the complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer as per Section 2(i)(d) of the Act as the opposite parties has not taken any financial charges from her or to serve her; she did not have any locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint, the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and that she had not come to the Forum with clean hands and was guilty of concealing true facts from the Forum, therefore, the complainant was liable to be burdened with heavy costs amounting to `20,000/- for dragging them in an unwarranted and false litigation. In parawise reply, it was admitted that deceased maintained a CPF account No.21739 and FPS/EPS Account No.119667 with opposite parties No.5 & 6. It was also First Appeal No.593 of 2014 5 admitted that deceased husband of the complainant was remitting contributions in the said accounts through them and the said amounts were deducted from the salary of her late husband for contributing towards these accounts. It was admitted that as an employer they were duty bound for deducting the same from the salary of her husband for contributing towards his CPF & FPS accounts but did not charge any other charges from her husband and they were performing their legal duty as an employer, therefore, deceased husband of the complainant was not a consumer qua them. In para 3(d) of their reply, it was stated that the whole amount of CPF was paid to complainant alongwith upto date interest. It was averred that she applied for payment of CPF vide her letter dated August, 2008 and opposite party No.1 forwarded the said document to opposite party No.2 on the next date vide letter No.FCI / FSD / SNM / DPS / CPF / 07-08 and thereafter opposite party No.2 further forwarded the said documents to opposite party No.3 on 15.09.2008 vide letter No.SGR / IR-L / DPS/Death Case/Mukhtiar Singh/SNM/2008-09 dated 15.09.2008. It was stated that the amount of `1,33,483/- was sanctioned including interest upto the date of sanction i.e.27.07.2012. It was agitated that she submitted her pension case in the month of August, 2008 to the office of opposite party No.1, which was forwarded to opposite party No.2 on 13.09.2008 vide letter No.FCI/FSD/SNM/DPS/CPF/07-08 dated 25.08.2008. It was stated that the said documents were further forwarded to opposite party No.3 vide letter No.SGR/IR-L/DPS/ /Death Case/Mukhtiar Singh/SNM/2008-09 dated 14.05.2009. The said documents were returned back to opposite party No.2 vide letter First Appeal No.593 of 2014 6 No.CPF(4)/Lab/HZ/EP/10-11/76 dated 23.02.2011 and the said documents were returned to opposite party No.1 by opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 21.03.2011 / 03.05.2011. Opposite party No.1 re-forwarded the same after removing the objections to opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 25.04.2012 and opposite party No.2 further forwarded it to Assistant General Manager (IR-L), FCI, Zonal Office (N) CPF Division, A-2A, A-2B, Sector 24, Noida, vide letter dated 31.05.2012 / 07.06.2012 who finally paid `1,33,483/- the amount of CPF account of the deceased including interest, which was sanctioned on 27.07.2012. It was averred that in respect of pension case the complainant has not submitted her pension case with them. It was pleaded that the opposite parties gave a public notice by publication in Punjab Kesari (Hindi) and Jagbani (Punjabi) newspapers dated 15.10.2012 to all the concerned labourers and all their legal heirs to submit their pension case in the office of relevant Manager (Depot) as early as possible for next proceedings. It was averred that delay was not caused due to any negligence and default on their part but it was due to non-supply of documents by the complainant. It was averred that the formalities for claim were to be completed by the complainant and was to be submitted to opposite party no.1. It was averred that after receipt of full set of documents, opposite party No.4 was required to submit the claim with opposite party No.5 for pension payment order. It was also agitated that after issuance of P.P.O. the opposite party No.5 was required to direct opposite party No.6 for pension payment to the complainant. It was pleaded that the delay was not caused due to their negligence. It further took the plea that they were not accountable for any manner First Appeal No.593 of 2014 7 as the complainant and her husband was not their consumer because they had not charged anything from the complainant or from her husband for forwarding amount of deduction of CPF/PPF to opposite parties No.5 & 6. It was averred that complainant submitted her claim only once and the documents related to the payment of pension were not filed by the complainant with opposite party No.1 and denied other averments pleaded in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
6. Opposite parties No.5 & 6 filed their written reply and took preliminary objections that no Monthly Pension Scheme Form No.10- D in respect of the deceased member was received at their end. It was agitated that as per the provisions of para 17 (A) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred as EPS 1995), the complainant was required to submit her claim form 10-D duly completed in all respects by herself or through her employer. On receipt of the said claim form it would be processed in accordance of EPS, 1995 and the release the due benefits to the beneficiaries within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application by them. It was pleaded that the complaint filed by the complainant is pre-mature and is liable to be rejected as on the date of filing the complainant herself had failed to fulfill the statutory requirements to submit of pension claim form 10-D duly completed in all respects in their office. On merits averments stated in the preliminary objections were reiterated. However, in the present case, no such monthly pension claim form No.10-D in respect of her late husband was received from any office till date. It was averred that opposite parties have their office at 28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Wazirpur Inds. Area, Delhi-110052 and the First Appeal No.593 of 2014 8 same comes under the jurisdiction of Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shalimarbagh, Delhi-110088. As such, the District Forum did not have any territorial jurisdiction against them and prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant was pre- mature and deserved to be dismissed.
7. The District Forum allowed the parties to lead their evidence in support of their averments. The District Forum heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant as well as of opposite parties and allowed the complaint as referred above.
8. Aggrieved with impugned order the complainant herself has filed the present appeal in this Commission for modification of the District Forum order.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant; counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3, 5 & 6 and perused the record of the District Forum which was called at the stage of admission.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the District Forum wrongly gave direction to the complainant to submit her claim form for seeking pension from opposite parties No.5 & 6. He argued that it is well documented in the exhibits itself that the complainant had submitted all the documents with the opposite parties which was referred by them in their letter dated 15.09.2009, Ex.C-4 to opposite party No.1, having its district office at Sangrur addressed to Assistant General Manager (IR-L), CPF, Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (North), (CPF Division), A-2A, A-2B, Sector, 24, Noida (UP), wherein family pension declaration form was duly forwarded by FCI, District Office, Sangrur mentioned at Sr.No.7 of the above referred letter. He further argued that once the form for claiming pension was First Appeal No.593 of 2014 9 submitted there was no necessity of sending any other form in order to process the pension of the complainant and prayed that the order passed by the District Forum be modified.
11. On the other hand, counsel on behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 4 argued that as per the above referred letter Ex.C-4 the application sent under Sr.No.7 pertained only to Family Pension Declaration Form, 1971 and it does not relate to form 10-D as that form was only required to be filled up by the complainant. He further argued that District Forum wrongly allowed the complaint of the complainant as there was no privity of contract between their offices vis-a-vis the complainant. She herself and her husband are not their consumers as they had not charged any amount in rendering legal duties to them.
12. Learned counsel on behalf of opposite parties No. 5 & 6 argued that since they have not received the Form 10-D neither from the employer nor from the complainant and they were handicapped to settle the family pension case of the complainant. He averred that no deficiency was there on their part when they have already settled payment of CPF account and released the amount of `1,33,483/- in her favour and argued that the order passed by the District Forum is wrong and needs to be set aside.
13. In order to decide the controversy in hand, we have perused the records of the District Forum and have gone through the order passed by the District Forum. However, order of the District Forum qua opposite parties No. 1 to 6 has attained finality as these opposite parties have not filed any appeal against the said order. First Appeal No.593 of 2014 10
14. We have perused the letter dated 15.09.2009, Ex.C-4, wherein at Sr.No.7, the description of the document mentioned therein is Family Pension Declaration Form, 1971. We have not found any record of the application submitted by the complainant enclosing the documents submitted by her to the Food Corporation of India's office situated at Sangrur-opposite party No.1 and all the documents as being mentioned from 1 to 10 in the exhibit C-4 are as under:-
"1. Application for C.P.F. Final payment of Smt. Mohinder Kaur.
2. Death Certificate (Original)
3. English version of Death Certificate
4. CPF Slip.
5. Affidavit of Smt. Mohinder Kaur
6. Residence Certificate
7. Family Pension Declaration Form, 1971
8. Contributory Provident Fund Rule 200-14
9. Contributory Provident Fund, 1967
10. CPF Form No.II"
15. From the perusal of this exhibit, we find that slips pertaining to compulsory provident fund at Sr.No.4, contributory provident fund at Sr.No.8, contributory provident fund 1967 at Sr.No.9 and CPF Form II at Sr.No.10 were mentioned but there is no mention about the form 10-D in the said exhibit. In the absence of any other record placed on the file, we do not agree with the contention made by the counsel for the complainant that the order passed by the District Forum needs modification.
16. Learned counsel for the complainant raised a demand for higher compensation on account of delay in settling her claim from the opposite parties. Since the complainant has lodged his claim application in the year 2008 only, we find that the District Forum had awarded adequate interest as well as compensation to the First Appeal No.593 of 2014 11 complainant, as such, we do not find any reason to enhance the same and the same is declined.
17. In order to get the dues, the complainant was required to submit her application once again but instead of submitting the application form to the opposite parties she is seeking the modification of the order. We feel that the complainant is unnecessarily prolonging the litigation against the opposite party and is not interested to take up her case for early settlement of her pension by way of submitting another application to opposite party No.1 for onward submission to opposite parties No.5 & 6. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that complainant was required to submit her application in form 10-D for release of her pension as per direction passed by the Learned District Forum.
18. We do not see any reason to modify the well reasoned order passed by the District Forum and appeal filed by the complainant seeking modification of the District Forum order is not having merit and the same is dismissed.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER April,19, 2017 parmod