State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines ... vs Smt Erra Srilaxmi on 6 August, 2012
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.263 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.39 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ADILABAD Between: The Regional Commissioner (wrongly shown as the Commissioner in CC) Coal Mines Provident Fund, Millennium Quarters IB Colony, Opp. Bus Stand, Gadavari Khani Karimnagar Dist. Appellant/opposite party A N D Smt Erra Srilaxmi W/o late Sudhakar D/o Muppidi Mallaswamy, aged about 31 years Occ: Household, R/o H.No.11-21-261, Kashibugga, Warangal Dist. Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellants M/s V.Gourisankara Rao Counsel for the Respondent M/s K.Karunakar QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER MONDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The opposite party has challenged the order dated 15.9.2010 passed by the District Forum on the premise that after receipt of the online SB Account Number of the respondents husband from the Singareni Collieries on 23.09.2010, the appellant settled the claim of the respondent by fixing the widow pension for `437/- and arrears for `49,996/- and deposited the amount into her SN Account. The appellant deposited the amount on 23.09.2010. It is contended that the office of the commissioner of CMPF is situated at Dhanbad in Jharkhand and not at Godavarikhani. The office of Regional Commissioner is situated at Godavarikhani.
2. The facts of the case leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondents husband was an employee of the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd at Mandamarri with employment code no.2282606 and during the period of his service he contributed an amount of Rs.19/- to the appellant towards family pension. He died on 1.11.2001 and after his death, and after the death of her husband, the respondent lodged claim with the appellant for grant of widow pension. The appellant directed her to submit succession certificate which she accordingly submitted and the employer of her husband addressed letter dated 20.07.2002 requesting the appellant to sanction widow pension to the respondent. As the claim was not settled, the respondent got issued notice through her counsel on 25.07.2009 and as there was no response to the notice, the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.
3. The appellant submitted that widow pension claim was settled for `407/- in favour of the respondent on 18.11.2009 and the amount could not be credited to her bank account due to non-submission of her online SB account number. The revised wages of the deceased husband of the respondent, `49,996/-
were received by the appellant from the SCCL. It is contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant .
4. During pendency of the complaint, the respondent submitted her online SB account to the appellant. The District Forum has passed the following order;
The Ld. Advocate for complainant is prepared to furnish the online SBH SB A/c No. of the complainant to opposite party. The A/c No. of the complainant is mentioned in ex.A6 as OSB/POR/15070. Ex.A6 was letter dated 18.11.2009 issued by office of the Divisional Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization Godavarikhani. Thus we decide the point in favour of complainant and against the opposite party.
In the result the petition is allowed. The opposite party is directed to deposit claim amount including revised pension arrears and accrued interest there upon into the account of District Consumer Forum, Adilabad within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to proceed against the opposite party u/s 25/27 of C.P.Act, 1986. No costs.
5. The respondent filed her affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A6. Neither affidavit nor any documents are filed by the appellant.
6. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of facts or law?
7. The respondents husband was an employee with the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd and he died on 1.11.2001. The respondents claim for family pension was not settled by the appellant requiring her to produce succession certificate. The respondent had submitted the succession certificate to the appellant. After receiving the succession certificate, the appellant had not settled the claim of the respondent resulting the respondent getting issued notice dated 25.07.2009. The relevant paragraph of the notice reads as under:
My client stated that, as no alternative again my client has approached the Dy.Personal manager & Incharge of K.K.-5A Incline of Mandamarry Area and prayed for sanction of widow pension for her lifelihood upon which another reminder also issued by the Dy.Personal Manager & Incharge of K.K.-5A Incline of Mandamarry Area to you through its Ref.No.MMR/KK-5A/WP/654, dt: 22-06-2009, although you did not paid any single pie to my client so far. The act of you which are clearlyshows the gross negligence and deficiency in service. Thus you have created lot of mental and physical agonies to my client and harassed her by you as being the public servant and not performed on part of your duty.
8. Having received no response for the notice from the appellant, the respondent filed CCNo.77of 2009. The District Forum disposed of the complaint directing the appellant to settle the claim of the respondent after she has submitted the claim form along with the documents. The District Forum observed submission of the claim papers and inaction of the appellant to settle the claim as under:
Heard both sides. This case is of short CC77/2009 in which this forum directed this opposite party to settle the claim after receiving the claim application and related documents and that was closed. Subsequent to the disposal of the case the complainant submitted necessary papers. There is no proper response from the opposite party. So complainant was forced to file C.C.No.39 of 2010 the same relief.
9. The respondent has stated that the appellant promised to settle the claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of claim papers from the employer of the deceased husband of the respondent. The relevant paragraph of the letter addressed to the District Forum is quoted in paragraph 10 of the complaint reads as under:
In this connection, it is to inform that the widow pension claim said to be sent is not traceable in this office due to shifting of the office records from Hyderabad to Godavarikhani. Hence the management of the Singareni collieries co., Ltd., is requested to forward a fresh pension claim to this office for processing the same. A copy of the letter is enclosed herewith for your kind information. On receipt of the claim from the management, the claim will be settled within a fortnight.
10. Thus, it is incumbent upon the respondent to perform its obligation of settlement of the claim. Instead, the appellant had not taken any steps to settle the claim even after receipt of the claim form and relevant documents from the SCCL.
11. The fact that the appellant was negligent in settling the claim of the respondent is manifestly established by its reply in CC No.77of2009 wherein it was stated that the claim form submitted by the respondent could not be traced and the appellant requested the SCCL to forward fresh pension claim. The appellant has not requested either the respondent or her husbands employer to furnish her SB account number. On receiving the notice from the District Forum in CCNo.39 of 2010 the appellant has addressed letter dated 17.06.2010 marking a copy of it to the SCCL wherein the SB online number of the respondent was sought for. The letter reads as under:
With reference to the above cited subject, I am to inform that this Office is in receipt of Notice in C.c.No.39/2010 from the Hnble District Consumer forum, Adilabad regarding Pension Settlement of Late Shri Erra Sudhakar S/o Venkati CMPF A/c NO.Hyd/78/1606, KK-5A, Unit No.Hyd/78. In this connection it is inform that the widow Pension Claim was settled in Rs.407/- in favor of Smt Erra Srilaxmi on 18.11.2009, but Pension could not be credited to her bank account due to non-submission of online S.b.A/c No. of SBH.
Meanwhile the revised wages of the deceased member Late Sri Erra Sudhakar have been received from the SCCL management. Accodingly the Widow Pension was revised for Rs.437/- with arrears payable amount is Rs.9,996/-. As such it is requested to kindly advise the widow to submit the online SBH, SB A/c No. in order to release her Widow Pension with arrears.
12. In Lucknow Development Authority vs MK Gupta reported in III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) the Honble Supreme Court observed inaction of the authority in the following words:
The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, `a network of rackets' or a society in which, producers have secured power' to 'rob the rest' and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting against it, is accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be a silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot."
13. The negligence of the appellant in keeping the claim papers leading to the situation where the pension claim form was lost and could not be traced as also the appellant sitting on the claim application without taking any action and seeking for submission of SB online account of the respondent after a long lapse time only after the respondent approached the District Forum, is proved taking us to the circumstances to here, we find no merits in the appeal.
14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. The parties shall bear their own costs.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.06.08.2012 KMK*