State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Employees Provident Funds ... vs Balbir Singh And Others on 10 September, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1401 of 2013
Date of Institution: 18.12.2013
Date of Decision: 10.09.2015
1. The Employees Provident Funds Organization, through its Regional
Provident Funds Commissioner, Sub, Regional Office, Bhavishya
Nidhi, Nidhi Bhawan Urban Estate Phase-I, Near T.V. Tower,
Bathinda, Punjab.
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, (pension, Employees'
Provident Fund Organization, Regional office. Delhi (North),
Bhavishaya Nidhi Bhawan, Plot No. 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area,
Delhi.
3. The Regional Commissioner (Pension), Employees Provident Fund
Organization, Regional Office, Ministry Office Labour (Government of
India), SCO No. 4 to 7 Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.
.......Appellants/OPs
Versus
1. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Nand Singh R/o House No.289, VPO Gobindgarh
Jejian, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.
........Respondent/Complainant
2. The Manager (Depot), Food Corporation of India, Food Storage Depot,
Sunam.
........Respondent/OP No.1
3. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office Sangrur.
4. The Executive Director North Zone Food Corporation of India, Zonal
Office (North) A-2A, A-2B, Sector 24, Noida U.P.
.......Respondent/OP No.3
5. The Assistant General Manager (CPF-L) Food Corporation of India,
Head Quarter, CPF Division, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.
........Respondent/ OP No.4
F.A. No. 1401 of 2013 2
First Appeal against the order dated
21.10.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Smt. Surinder Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. R.K. Syal, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Ex-parte
For respondent No.2 to 5 : Sh. Anil Shukla, Advocate
.............................................. SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER The Appellants/Opposite Party No.5 to 7 (hereinafter referred as the OP No.5 to 7) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter referred as "District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No.449 dated 01.10.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant(hereinafter referred as Complainant) was party allowed and OP No.5 to 7 were directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 14,467/- i.e. arrear of pension and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986(in short `the Act') on the averments that he was working as Handling Labourer at FSD, FCI, Sunam and retired on 31.12.2011 after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. He also maintained EPS (Employee Pension Scheme) bearing account No.119604 with the OPs. OP No.5 to 7 had fixed his pension @ Rs.1183/- per month against the PPO number 8432. One Bachana Singh, who retired on 31.12.2011 was also working F.A. No. 1401 of 2013 3 as handling labourer and his pension was sanctioned @ Rs.1571/- per month. Complainant sought the information from the OP No. 2 and OP No.6 under the Right to Information Act but they refused to give the information to avoid themselves to pay the pension at higher rate. Complainant also sought information from OP No.5 & 6 vide application dated 10.07.2012 under RTI Act, still that information was not provided to him. Complainant several times approached the OPs to get detailed information but all in vain. Complainant was entitled for correct rate pension as per the employee of similar status like Bachanna Singh @ 18% p.a. from the date of difference. The above said Act of the OPs amounted to deficiency in their services. Hence, he filed the present complaint before the District Forum seeking the following directions against OPs.
(i) to give the information under RTI;
(ii) to pay the differential amount along with interest @ 18% from the
date of its respective due date till the date of realization;
(iii) to pay correct monthly pension;
(iv) to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and agony;
(v) to pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation costs;
3. Complaint was contested by OPs. OP No.1 to 4 filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the Provident Fund Scheme could not be held to be "service" within the meaning of section 2 (1) (o) and complainant did not fall under the definition of "consumer" under the Act. Complainant had no locus standi to file the present complaint and had not come to the District Forum with clean hands. Complainant had concealed the true facts from the Forum. Complainant was an employee of FCI and was governed under the FCI staff regulation Act, 1971. Complaint was barred by limitation and District Forum had no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint F.A. No. 1401 of 2013 4 and that the complainant had filed the complaint with malafide intention to harass these OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs Rs. 20,000/-. On merits, it was admitted that complainant maintained EPS (Employees Pension Scheme) account bearing No.119604 with OP No. 5 to 7. Complainant was entitled for pension benefits as computed by OP No.5 to 7 and Rs.1183/- (i.e. pension) per month was ordered to be paid to the complainant against the PPO no. 8432. It was denied that complainant being member of EPS was consumer of OPs. He had not purchased or hired any service from FCI rather was an employee of FCI who was not a service provider. The relationship between complainant and FCI was of Employer and employee. The responsibility of these OPs were to requisition the necessary family pension documents from complainant and forward the same to OP No.5 to 7. It was the duty of employer to deduct the amount from the salary of the complainant for contributing towards the EPS account. The date of admission was available in the master data as 01.04.1997 with CPF division. But according to 3PS i.e. (Form) the date of admission was 1.2.1995 Due to wrong date of admission in earlier master data, lesser contribution was remitted to RPFC. As soon as complainant furnished the necessary formalities at the same time they forwarded the pension documents to OP No.5 to 7 with correct information. There was no deficiency in services on the part of these OPs. They always cooperated with the complainant for processing the pension claim. Complaint was without merit it be dismissed.
4. OP No. 5 to 7 filed separate written reply by taking preliminary objections that complaint was not maintainable against them. If there was any harassment to the complainant that was on the part of employer as they had supplied incorrect data to these OPs and that they were working for the welfare of the employees as well as its beneficiaries. On merits, they admitted that as per departmental record the date of birth of the complainant was recorded as F.A. No. 1401 of 2013 5 01.01.1952 and EPS Account No.119604, was allotted to him and that membership had ceased on 31.12.2009 after attaining age of superannuation i.e. 60 yrs. The EPFO Noida received claim application dated 31.05.2011 through authorized signatory M/S FCI i.e. employer of the complainant. As per Form No. (3PS), the period of the service of the member/complainant was reckoned at 13 years i.e. commencing from 01.04.1997 to 31.12.2009. After processing the claim application "Input Data Sheet" vide letter dated 16.06.2011, they forwarded the document to RPFC Bathinda for disbursing the pension to complainant. Subsequently, the employer of the complainant i.e. M/S FCI submitted a revised form No. (3PS) wherein the date of commencement of membership was marked as 01.02.1995. Accordingly, the period of service was counted as out 15 years. On the receipt of "Revised Return", the claim of the complainant was processed again and revised "input Data Sheet" was prepared which was forwarded to RPFC Bathinda vide letter dated 16.01.2013 for recalculation of pension. In earlier calculation the "Period of Service" years was 13 yrs based on incorrect data showing in Form No. (3PS) by the employer of the complainant. As soon the EPFO office received the correct information, necessary action was taken by them and fresh PPO No .i.e. PBBTI/10643 was issued to the complainant directing his revised pension and Rs. 14,467/- was paid as arrears of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2010 to 31.01.2013. There was no deficiency in their services and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
6. In support of the averments, the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of Darshan Singh S/o Balbir Singh Ex.C-1 along with other documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-18 and closed his evidence. On other hand OP No.1 to 4 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Satnam Singh F.A. No. 1401 of 2013 6 Area Manager, FCI Ex.R-1 along with other documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4 and closed their evidence.
7. After going through the allegations alleged in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint of the complainant as referred above.
8. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Ld. District Forum, the Appellants/Ops have preferred the present appeal.
9. In the grounds of appeal the OPs alleged that the District Forum wrongly directed OP No.5 to 7 to pay arrear to the tune of Rs. 14,467/- and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental tension and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs. Whereas, Rs. 14,467/- as pension arrear had been paid to the complainant after receiving the revised Form No. 3PS from the employer of the complainant.
10. The OPs proved on record affidavit of Satnam Singh Area Manager FCI Ex.R-1 in which he deposed all the facts stated in the written reply, he deposed that complainant was serving in FCI and his date of birth was 01.01.1952 and he retired on 31.12.2011 after the attainment of age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. OP No.5 to 7 had ordered to pay Rs.1183/- per month against the PPO No.8432 to the complainant. In master data the date of admission was 01.04.1997. But according to Form No. 3PS the date of admission was 1.2.1995. Due to wrong date of admission in earlier master data, lesser contribution was remitted to RPFC.
11. Further, OPs also proved on record affidavit of V.K Dhawan Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in which he deposed that after receiving the revised Form No. 3PS without any delay they issued the fresh PPO No. PBBTI/10643 and also issued the arrears of pension i.e. 14,467/- to the complainant. A letter dated 06.12.2013 (Annexure A-1) was written to the Punjab National Bank in which it was mentioned that a sum of Rs.14,467/- was F.A. No. 1401 of 2013 7 credited in the account No.0438000101279155 in the name of Sh. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Nand Singh dated 04.03.2013. In this way, there is no deficiency on the part of appellants/OP No.5 to 7 because as soon as they received the correct data regarding EPS (Employee Pension Scheme) of complainant they issued the fresh PPO No. i.e. PBTI/1/10643 to complainant and released the arrears of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2010 to 31.03.2010. However, it was the plea of the OP No.1 to 4 that as per form No. 3PS the membership by the complainant had commenced from 01.04.1997 instead of 01.02.1995. But it was the duty of the OP No.1 to 4 to send the correct date of membership of the complainant to OP No.5 to 7 but they failed to perform their duty. Due to wrong date of EPS of complainant sent to OP No.5 to 7 proper pension of complainant could not be fixed in time. As such, complainant suffered hardship at the hands of OP No.1 to 4 and they compelled the complainant to file the complaint. Therefore, the deficiency is on the part of OP No.1 to 4. But there is no appeal filed by the complainant against these OPs. As such, no relief can be given to complainant against them in this appeal. While allowing the complaint District Forum has observed that there is no documentary evidence produced by the parties that the arrears of pension has been credited to the complainant. Whereas, OPs had credited the arrear of pension of Rs. 14,467/- in the account of the complainant referred above. So, findings of the District Forum are not correct as per evidence on the record therefore, the order of the District Forum is not sustainable.
12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the OPs is allowed and impugned order is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.
13. The appellants/Ops had deposited a sum of Rs.14,734/- + Rs.5000/ at the time of filing the appeal along with interest which had been accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant F.A. No. 1401 of 2013 8 No.1 by way of a crossed cheque/ demand draft who deposited that amount before this Commission.
14 The arguments in this appeal were heard on 31.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) Presiding Judicial Member (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) September 10, 2015 MEMBER SK F.A. No. 1401 of 2013 9