State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Regional Commissioner vs Chotelal Jethu Raidas on 27 March, 2014
Daily Order
STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
CIRCUIT BENCH
AT NAGPUR
5 TH FLOOR,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
CIVIL LINES,
NAGPUR-440 001
First Appeal
No. a/08/96
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 30/11/2007 in Case No. 80/2007 of District Nagpur)
1. The Regional Commissioner
Coal Mines Provident Fund,Jaripataka, Nagpur
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Chotelal Jethu Raidas
R/o.Selewara,Tah-Saoner,Distt-Nagpur
2. Mines Superintendent/Manager
Silewara,Tahsil-Saoner,Distt-Nagpur
Nagpur
3. Mines Superintendent/Manager Silewara
Silewara Tah.Saoner
Nagpur
M.S
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. B.A.Shaikh
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. S.B.SAWARKAR MEMBER
PRESENT:
Adv.Mr. Javed Razzak
......for the Appellant
Adv. Mr. S.K.Pashine for
respondent no. 1
Adv. Mr. Jain for respondent no. 2.
......for the Respondent
ORDER
(Passed On 27/03/2014) Per Shri S.B. Sawarkar, Hon'ble Member
1. The present appeal is filed against the order passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur in complaint no. 80/2007, dated 30/11/2007. Vide which order the Forum granted the complaint partly and directed the OP no. 1 to release regular pension to the complainant from the date of his retirement with 9 percent per annum interest upon the arrears till the date of payment. The order further directed OP no. 2 to provide Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant in 30 days.
2. The facts leading to above order are that the complainant herein one Mr. Chotelal Jethu Raidas made a complaint to a Forum that he was a class four employee of OP no. 2, Mines Superintendent, Sillewara Colliary at Sawner, District Nagpur from 1969. While in the service the OP no. 2 deducted 2% amount from the salary as subscription of family pension till his retirement on 31/01/2005. He was also given the CMPF No. A/335658. His deducted subscription was deposited by OP no. 2 to OP no. 1, the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines, Provident Fund, Nagpur.
3. However, after his retirement on 31/01/2005, the complainant was paid the amount towards provident Fund but the OP no. 1 and 2 communicated to him that as, at the time of appointment, he did not opt for the family pension scheme of 1971, he is not eligible to get the family pension. His repeated requests were turned down by OP no. 1 and 2.
4. The complainant then sent a notice through his advocate on 13/4/2007 after making all efforts of requesting OP no. 1 and 2 to OP no. 2. After getting a reply in negative, the complainant filed a complaint before the Forum with a request that the complainant be given regular pension and arrears of pension from 01/11/2005 to 30/4/2007 claiming it to be Rs. 36,000/- towards pension. Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses thus, total claim of Rs. 46,000/- with a interest at the rate of Rs. 18 percent per annum and future interest. The OP no. 1 appeared before the Forum and raised the following objections.
A. That provident fund and pension do not fall in the ambit of dispute under Consumer Protection Act and that their nonpayment does not constitute deficiency in service, under Consumer Protection Act.
B. The complainant was not the Member of the family pension scheme of 1971 and had not opted so in the form submitted by him.
C. The complainant took Rs. 19,596/- deposited by him with the interest on 30/07/2006 from OP no. 2, his employer.
D. The amount of subscription deducted by OP no. 2 from the salary of complainant is returned to him. Hence he is not the Consumer of OP no. 1.
5. The Forum heard the complainant and OP no. 1. The OP no. 2 remained absent and hence not heard. The Forum held that;
A. The complainant is a Consumer as is defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and as is held in various judgment of the Supreme Court because OP no. 2 deducted 2% amount from his salary and deposited it with OP no. 2.
B. The OP no. 2 deducted the subscription all through the service and deposited it with OP no. 1. At the same time also allotted him the CMPF no. A/335658 and this OP no. 2 did for so many years which indicate that the complainant had opted for the pension scheme.
C. That the complainant acceptance of amount by complainant as accumulated subscription of Rs. 19,000/- has no meaning.
D. This indicated that the complainant is a consumer. He had opted for pension scheme and by refusing a pension to him, OP no. 1 has committed deficiency of service and thus the complainant deserves compensation and regular pension.
6. Thus the Forum below passed the order as above aggrieved against which the original OP no. 1 filed the appeal before us and hence being referred as appellant for brevity. The appeal is filed against the original complainant who is referred as respondent no. 1 and OP no. 2 is being referred as respondent no. 2.
7. When the appeal was pending before this Commission it was dismissed for want of prosecution due to absence of appellant as per order dated 22/06/2012. The appeal was then remanded back by the order of the Hon'ble National Commission in revision petition no. 4739 of 2012, as per order dated 19 August 2013.
8. As per the direction of the Hon'ble National Commission we took up the hearing expeditiously. We heard the advocates of both parties and perused the record.
9. During hearing, the advocate for the appellant submitted that, as the respondent no. 1 had not opted for family pension in the form by no. PEN no. 1 and as there was 'N' remark before his name at Sr. No. 771 in the list received from respondent no. 2, he was not considered for family pension. The deposition of subscription by respondent no. 2, was refunded to them, and was also returned to respondent no. 1. However when the appeal was pending before this Commission. The Government has issued a direction that even if such employee who has not opted for the family pension, if opts, for after retirement can also be considered for pension. Thus in the light of the new direction issued vide separate circular the respondent would be eligible to get the pension and the appellant would be ready to include him in the pension scheme. The advocate only requested that the interest awarded by the Forum is unjustifiable in the circumstances and therefore needs to be set aside.
10. The advocate for the respondent NO.
1 submitted that he is prepared to return and resubmit the amount of around Rs. 17,000/- received by the respondent by way of deposit of subscription if the respondent is included in the pension scheme.
11. We considered the issue and we find that the respondent was denied the pension because of the lacuna of his consent, in form no. PEN No. 1. In a Government organization it becomes difficult to go beyond the laid rules and take a decision to benefit someone. In a bureaucratic set up it would be difficult for any officer of appellant & respondent No. 2 to have taken the decision to allot the pension to respondent no. 1. Thus, the actions of appellant can be said to be the natural response in the bracket of rules. The interest levied will also be paid from the public funds of the appellant which are collected by the appellant from other members of the pension scheme. Thus, in the light of the present development and the consent by the appellant to start the pension to the respondent, we find it fit to waive only the interest quotient of the above order. However we are inclined to maintain impugned order about Payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental harassment and cost Rs. 1,000/-
Thus we passed the order as below.
ORDER
1. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent of waiving the quotient of 9 % per annum interest which was directed to be paid upon the arrears of the pension by appellant.
2. The order of the Forum stands modified to this effect only.
3. Rest of the impugned order is maintained.
4. The copies of the order be provided to all the parties.
[HON'ABLE MR. B.A.Shaikh] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MR.
S.B.SAWARKAR] MEMBER