F.A.NO.551 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.272 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II VISAKHAPATNAM

Between
1. Employees Provident Fund Organization
Rep. by its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Visakhapatnam

2. Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Rep. by its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Hyderabad

3. Employees Provident Fund Organization,
rep. by it’s the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, #14, Bhikaiji Cama Plaza
New Delhi-110 066

All rep. by its Asst. P.F. Commissioner-Legal
Mr.A. K.Singh S/o Late Lakhan Singh
aged about 40 years, R/o Hyderabad
Appellants/opposite parties no.1 to 3

A N D

1. Visakha Consumer’s Education & Service Society (VCESS)
Rep. by its President, Sri Chapa Kumar
Visakhapatnam

Respondent/complainant

2. Sri Ch.U.M.K.Chandrudu
Superintendent, Pension Process Cell
Employees Provident Fund organization
Visakhapatnam



3. Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Limited
Rep. by its Manager (P&IR)
Visakhapatnam
(R2&3 are not necessary parties)



Respondents/opposite parties no.4 and 5



Counsel for the Appellant Sri K.Raghuram Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent no.1 Ms V.Chaitanya Latha
Counsel for the Respondent No.2&3 Not necessary parties



QUORUM:

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER

&

SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER



WEDNESDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

TWO THOUSAND NINE



Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***

This appeal is directed against the order dated 30th day of January, 2008 passed by the District Forum-II, Visakhapatnam whereby the complaint filed by the respondent was allowed directing payment of pension from the very next date succeeding their respective dates of retirement till 17-09-2004, a sum of Rs.500/- towards compensation to each of the complainants and Rs.3,000/- towards the costs.

Briefly stated the material facts giving rise to the appeal are: The respondent is “Visaka Consumers’ Education & Service Society” certain retired employees of the 5th opposite party who by virtue of stature became the members of the 1st opposite party opted for voluntary retirement from their employer, the opposite party no.5 who remitted their provident fund along with matching contribution to the opposite party no.1 and in turn the opposite party no1.assigned them Provident Fund Account Numbers. Most of such employees left their service on 31st April, 2004 and some of them were not furnished the application forms on account their non-availability with the opposite party no.1. Later duly filled pension claim papers were sent by the 1st opposite party to the 5th opposite party and the delay in settlement was brought to the notice of the opposite party no.4 who informed the applicants that the pension would be paid as per the instructions of the opposite parties no.2 and 3 from the date of receipt of the claim but not from the date of retirement. The applicants brought to the notice of the opposite party no.4 that some of the employees received the amount from the date of their retirement and in their case the 1st opposite party was the cause for delay in furnishing the application forms to them. The opposite party no.5 addressed letter dated 13th November,2004 to the opposite party no.1 recommending for payment of pension with effect from 1st May,2004. The opposite party no.1 would not issue application forms to the employees during the period of their service and it is not possible for a retired employee to get processed his application form through his employer to be sent to the opposite party no.1 without observing any formalities. Thus, pension was sought to be paid from the date of retirement of the applicants from the service of the opposite party no.5.

The opposite party no.1 contested the claim contending that the pension was sanctioned strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Employees’ Pension scheme,1995. The pension payment process is computerized and as such they are generated by the computer. In case an applicant intends to draw pension earlier to his attaining 58 years, he would be entitled to the amount of pension reduced @3% for every year the age falls short of 58 years. If an applicant seeks for reduced pension before attaining 58 years he may exercise option for reduced pension either from the date of submission of claim application or from a prospective date. The applicant cannot be sanctioned pension from the date of his attaining 58 years .

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Regional provident Fund Commissioner and Central Provident Fund Commissioner filed the appeal contending that the impugned order is contrary to law and facts of the case.

The point for consideration is whether impugned order suffers from misappreciation of facts and law?

The Visakha Consumer Education and Services Society has filed complaint against the opposite parties stating that it had received a complaint from Thotakura Venkatarama Rao and many others who were the ex-employees of the opposite party no.5 against the opposite parties and on authorization it had filed the complaint against the opposite parties no.1 to 5. The very complaint is vague. The complainant is a society and as such it can file complaint against the opposite parties only on behalf of the identifiable consumers. The averments of the complaint shows that the complainant has received complaints from many ex-employees of the opposite partyno.5 company. The cause title or body of the complaint has no mention of the consumers, their description etc. The complainant can file the complaint only on behalf of the consumers who satisfies the conditions laid down in Sec.2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act. We are not concerned here whether the ex-employees of the opposite party no.5 are consumers within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act. The complainant being a society can file complaint only on behalf of the consumers but in this case the society has filed the complaint without the complaint having any mention of the identity of the consumers who are said to have been the ex-employees of the opposite party no.5 company. The complaint in the present form without any mention of the consumers is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, keeping in view of the nature of the irregularity which can be rectified, we feel it just and proper to remand the matter giving opportunity to the complainant to rectify the defect and on the defect being rectified, enquiry be made afresh. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case we are inclined to remand the matter to the District Forum with the aforementioned observations.

In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District forum dated 30.1.2008. The complaint is remitted to the District Forum for denova enquiry by giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence and pronounce orders on merits within three months. Both parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 14.12.2009 without insisting on fresh notice. No costs.

F.A. No. 53 of 2009 Decided on 9.12.2009.

1. The Regional Provident Fund Organisation,

Nehru Place New Delhi.

2. The Regional Provident Fund Organisation,

Through its Regional P.F.Commissioner,

Regional Office, Haryana Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,

Near Fire Brigade, Sector 15-A, Faridabad,

Haryana-121007.

....Appellants.

Versus

1. Sh. Sali Ram, son of Sh. Jodha Ram,

R/o V & P.O. Kechhera, Tehsil Jaisinghpur,

Distict Kangra, H.P.


2. The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,

Grid Bhawan, Rail Head Complex,

Jammu, J & K.
3. The National Hydro Electric Power Corporation,

Sector-33, Faridabad, Haryana-121007. …..Respondents.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.

Whether approved for reporting ?

For the Appellants. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel,

Advocate.

For the Respondents. Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate for

respondent No.1.

Mr. Vimal Gupta, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

Smt. Gurleen Kaur, Officer on

behalf of respondent No.3.

ORDER

Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President.

1. When hearing in this appeal commenced, Mr. Chandel, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complaint No. 296/2006, wherein impugned order has been passed on 29.11.2008, was barred by time, District Forum, Kangra has no territorial jurisdiction to have entertained muchless tried this complaint. In addition to this, in the alternative without in any manner admitting the claim of respondent No.1, he submitted that compensation awarded is on higher side and interest in any event could not have been allowed on Rs. 5000/- awarded as compensation. Though he hastened to add that by making this submission he is neither admitting nor in any manner accepting the claim of the respondent. All these pleas were seriously contested and resisted on behalf of respondent No.1. Per him appellants have their office at Palampur. Regarding other respondents it was fairly stated by Mr. Sharma that they did not have their branch office or other establishment within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala. He further submitted that the impugned order may be upheld in the peculiar facts of this case.



2. After having given our thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that so far interest allowed on the sum of Rs. 5000/- i.e. the amount of compensation is concerned, District Forum below was in error having granted the same. Reason being that compensation is awarded in favour of respondent No.1 and interest is also compensatory in character. As such this submission urged by Mr. Chandel needs to be upheld. Ordered accordingly.



3. So far question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned it could not be disputed on behalf of the appellants, that they have one of their offices at Palampur. In this behalf Sh. Chandel tried to make capital from the fact that his clients had been sued at New Delhi and Faridabad addresses. Since admittedly appellants have their office within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, therefore this plea urged on behalf of the appellants is hereby rejected.



4. We should have dealt with the plea of limitation however, looking to the meagre sum awarded by way of compensation and cost, as well as in view of the decision in Bhuvneshwari Devi V/s Murari Lal and Ors, High Court of Himachal Pradsh, AIR, 1986, H.P, 44, we depricate this plea of the appellants as a limb of the welfare state to invoke plea of limitation against its subject.



5. We further clarify regarding submission of Mr. Chandel that compensation should not have been allowed at all because there was no inaction/delay on the part of his clients. He further submitted that the moment codal formalities were completed, his clients issued the PPO (Pension Pay Order) on 2nd May 2008. We are not going into this plea, looking the meagre sum awarded in this case.

6. No other point was urged.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion while partly allowing this appeal order passed by District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Consumer Complaint No. 296/2006 on 29.11.2008 is modified thereby disallowing interest on the sum of Rs. 5000/- granted as compensation. Subject to this modification rest of the order passed by District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala is upheld leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

8. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith.


9. Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules.

F.A.No.977 OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.NO.19 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM SRIKAKULAM

Between
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Provident Fund Organisation, Vuda Lay Out
NAD Post, Viskhapatnam, rep. by its
Asst. P.F.Commissioner, Mr.M.Sri Rangan

2. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner,
Provident Fund Organisation, Vuda Lay Out,
NAD Post, Viskhapatnam, rep. by its
Asst. P.F.Commissioner, Mr.M.Sri Rangan

3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Sub-Regional Office, A.P. Hyderabad
Appellants/ opposite parties no.1 to


A N D
1. Gedela Rajappadu S/o Late Yerrayya
Watchman Sri Devi Mahal,
R/o Naidu Colony, 6th Ward
Amudalavalasa, Srikakulam Dist.

Respondent/complainant

2. The Management of Sri Devi Mahal
Rep. by its Managing Partner
Amudalavalasa, Srikakulam Dist.

Respondent/ opposite party no.4



Counsel for the Appellants Sri K.Raghuram Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent no.1 Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Served
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

&

SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
*** The opposite parties are the appellants. They have filed the appeal challenging the order of the District Forum Vishakapatnam. in C.D.No. 19 of 2006.

The facts of the case briefly stated that the complainant was working as watchman in Sri Devi Mahal, Amadalavalasa of the opposite party no.4. The complainant is a contributor to the Provident fund with account number AP/24604/10. The clerk of the opposite party no.4 without informing the complainant furnished the age particulars of the complainant to the opposite parties no.1 to 3. On coming to know of the same the complainant submitted representation to the opposite party no.4 along with the medical certificate as per rule 9 of A.P.S.E. Act showing his age as 45 years to the opposite parties no.1to 3.. The complainant is an illiterate. The opposite party no.4 has submitted the same along with the nomination and declaration form . On 4-07-1996 the complainant made a complaint to the opposite party 3.On 9-08-1996 the opposite party no.3 addressed a letter to the opposite party no.1 to initiate necessary action. As there was no response, the complainant addressed another letter to the opposite party no.1 to take action. On intervention of the president of the complainant’s union, the opposite party no.1 advised the complainant to submit a notarized affidavit. Without considering any material the second opposite party has issued proceedings on 25-03-2002 stating that the alteration of the date of birth of the complaisant is not permissible. The action of the opposite party no.2 is not in accordance with law.

The opposite parties no.1to 3 resisted the claim by filing counter. It was contended that the complainant submitted representation dated 4-01-1996 for change of his age as 45 years stating that his age was wrongly recorded as 55 years. The complainant submitted another two representations on 7-01-1997. The complainant submitted another two representations on 15-10-1998 claiming his age as 47 years. The date of birth of the complainant recorded in the basic records is valid. Accordingly, the complainant’s age was taken as 10-03-1940 as declared by the complainant and endorsed by the opposite party no.4. The complainant submitted representation for change of the date of birth only after the inception of the Employees Pension Scheme,1995 since the date of birth of the member plays an important role in determining the eligibility to claim the pensionery benefits. According to the date of birth i.e., 10-03-1940 as declared by the complainant in form 2(R) dated -01-1996, the complainant is not eligible for pensionery benefits. There is no provision in the scheme to alter the date of birth after the scheme is commenced. In form No.9 . the complainant claimed his date of birth as 29-09-2939, as per F2datted 9-01-1996 as 10-03-1940,as per F2 dated 7-01-1997as 7-01-1952, as per F2 dated 15-10-1998 as 15-10-1958 and as per medical certificate as 7-02-1950.

The opposite party no.4 has contended that the complainant being an illiterate could not file either school certificate or extract from the registrar of births and informed that his date of birth was not registered. As per rule 30 of the A.P.Shops and Establishments Rules issued, the letter of appointment and the format has not prescribed the age and as such the same age of the complainant could not be furnished. As per rule 9 of A.P.shops and Establishment Rules, when a person could not furnish the school certificate or extract from the registrar of birth, the employer has to produce the certificate in form IX from the government Medical Officer, not below the rank of assistant civi surgeon. Prior to the date of issuing of the medical certificate by the assistant civil surgeon the complainant filed another nomination and declaration stating that the age of the complainant as 47 years and the same was sent. The information furnished in form IX and nomination dated 9-01-1996 regarding age was mentioned as mistake and it is not based on any information furnished by the complainant. Finding the mistake, steps for rectification of the same were taken by following the procedure prescribed under the A.P.Shops and Establishment Act.

The district forum allowed the complaint holding that the opposite party no.1 ought to have permitted the complainant to declare his correct date of birth and he should have made entries in the relevant records showing the age of the complainant as 45 years.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite parties have filed the appeal contending that the district forum ought not to have relied up on the certificate issued by the doctor

The point for consideration is whether there has been mis-appreciation of facts or law in the impugned order?

The learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3 has contended that there was no negligence on the part of the appellants and negligence if any was only on the part of the opposite party no.4. The complainant was working as watchman in Sri Devi Mahal at Amudala Valasa belonging to the opposite party no.4. The date of birth of the complainant was not registered with the Registrar of Births and Death. As the complainant was not educated there was no evidence available from any school records. It is the contention of the complainant that the clerk of the opposite partyno.4 had submitted incorrect particulars of his age without informing him. On coming to know of the same, the complainant stated to have made a representation to the opposite party no.4 by submitting a medical certificate said to have been issued from the Govt. Medical Officer. The opposite party no.3 addressed a letter dated 4.7.1996 to the opposite partyno.1 to initiate necessary action. The complainant harped upon the inaction of the opposite partyno.1 in taking the action as contemplated in the letter dated 4.7.1996. The opposite party no.1 through letter dated 26.3.2002 informed the complainant that his date of birth could not be changed and the pensionery benefits cannot be extended to him.

The opposite party no.4 had submitted Ex.B1 Form No.9 wherein the name of the complainant has been show in Sl.No.10 and his age is show as 55 years, date of eligibility for membership as 29.9.1992 and date of joining FPF as 1.10.1992. It is clear by Ex.B1 that the age of the complainant was 55 years by the date of Ex.B1. Thereafter the complainant had submitted nomination and declaration form stating his age as 40 years and the same was certified by the opposite party no.4. Subsequently, the complainant has submitted an application dated 4.7.1996 that he is aged 45 years and the same was shown by the opposite party no.4 wrongly as 55. The complainant attributed fraud to the clerk of the opposite party no.4 stating that he had obtained the complainant’s signature in blank forms and as such the complainant requested to correct his date of birth as 45 basing on Ex.B4 certificate of age issued by Dr.A.Uma, Asst.Surgeon, Govt. Hospital Amudala Valasa. Ex.B4 shows that the doctor examined the complainant and in her opinion the complainant was aged about 45 years as on the date of the examination.

The complainant has submitted Ex.B5 wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 45 years. The complainant was enrolled as member of the employees’ provident scheme 1952 w.e.f 29.9.1993. He was allotted PF A/c No.AP/VP/24694/10. The date of birth as recorded in the basic record is valid for all practical purposes and accordingly the complainant’s age was taken as 10.3.1940 as was submitted by the opposite party no.4. As per the date of birth mentioned in the basic record the complainant is not eligible for pensionery benefits under the employees’ pension scheme, 1995.

The learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3 had submitted that there is no provision in the employees’ pension scheme 1995 to alter the date of birth after its acceptance in employees provident fund organization records. The Employees Pension Scheme 1995 had come into force on 16.11.1995. In order to be eligible for the monthly members pension, any member and the complainant as well should render eligible service of 10 years or more as provided by Sec.12 of the Act. Sec.14 of the Act mandates as follows:



14. Benefits on leaving service before being eligible for monthly member’s pension.---- (1) if a member has not rendered the eligible service prescribed in paragraph 99) on the date of exit, or on attaining 58 years of age whichever is earlier, he/she shall be entitled to a withdrawal benefit as laid down in Table ‘D’ or may opt to receive the scheme certificate provided on the date he/she has not attained the 58 years of age.



Relying upon Sec.14 of the Act the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3 has submitted that the complainant was not eligible for the benefits under the scheme in view of his age as was mentioned in the basic record. A perusal of the record also show that the opposite party no.4 though mentioned the age of the complainant as 55 years in Ex.B1, he had addressed letter dated 10.6.1996 stating that the age of the complainant was to be rectified by getting it corrected as 45 instead of 50 years. The introduction of employees family pension scheme, it appears that it has made the complainant think to get himself eligible for the benefits by producing a certificate from Asst. Civil Surgeon, Govt. Hospital, Amudala Valasa which, in fact cannot help the case of the complainant in any manner. The complainant could have approached the civil court for rectification of his date of birth and instead he kept quite till the introduction of the family pension scheme and attributed malafides to his employer the opposite party no.4 who infact has been in hand and glove with him. For all these reasons the appeal deserves to be allowed.

In the result the appeal allowed. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Sd/-

Dear Sir,

I was employee of M/S kalyanpur cement ltd ,Banjari ,distt -rohtas ,Bihar when, I regined from this organisation and
joined M/S Diamond cement ,Damoh,MP I applied for tranfer of pf dues to my pf a/c under Diamond cement I received
account slip 2007-2008 amount mentioned Rs 45,551/- on enquiry i came to know that pf accumulation amount Rs.
1,31,431 /- under pf a/c no BR/2226/124 HAS BEEN TRANSFERED TO MY NEXT EMPLOYER a/c no-MP/3618/2865 VIDE
letter no 3448 dtd 31.8.2007 under cheque no 498490 dtd 30.8.2007 to provident pf commioner jabalpur

Then, i request to regional pf commisioner ,SAGR ,MP for transfer amount but till date amount didnot transfer in MY PF
a/c no MP/3618/2865.
I have given several reminder but pf deptt is not taking any action. Kindly take necessary action for my transfer amount.


With kind regards,

Prem chand singh
Assistant manager,mech
plotno-1129,mahanadivihar
cuttack,orissa,pin-753004

p.f. exam of senior clerk held on 5th sep. 2009. I did not get result of this exam pls send me this results.

Dear Sir/Madam

I would like to state that i have resigned from the services of M/s Agelinet Technologies Limited Gurgaon on Dec'2007 & till date(after 3 Years of resignation) i have not received my dues of PF. My PF Account Number is HR/GGN/25408/000/648.

I have been constantly following up with the concerned but the only thing i have received is false promises & assurances.

Request your kind intervention to help me get this amount.

Thanking You
Swarnali Ghosh
Mob No - 9819831011