Learned counsel for the appellants files written note of submission.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that he was an employee under OP No.3 working as driver from 5.9.1980 to 31.8.2012. It is alleged inter alia that he attained the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years on 31.8.2012. During his service, he was contributing EPF to OP No.3 from 5.9.1980 to 28.2.2008. It is alleged inter alia by the complainant that after retirement although he is entitled to get the pension but did not get pension by OP No.3. OP Nos. 1 and 2 only sanctioned the monthly pension with effect from 28.8.2017. According to him the beneficiaries are eligible for pension after the death of the complainant as per the provision of EPS, 1995. OP No.1 omitted to mention the name of the disabled son of the complainant namely, Santosh Mallik in the PPO which is deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 and 2. His son has got 60% disability and in spite of his best effort his name could not be included in the PPO and as such he is deprived of getting the pension. So, the complaint was filed.
4. OP Nos.1 and 2 filed written version stating that they have not received the disability certificate for which there is no any deficiency in service.
5. OP No.3 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable before the learned District Forum. There is no cause of action to file the alleged complaint and alleged complaint is based upon false, fabricated and wrong story. So, he submits to dismiss the consumer complaint.
6. After hearing both sides, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
In the result, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed against OP No. 1 & 2 to the payment of cost only and dismissed against OP No.3. The OP No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- only towards cost of litigation to the complainant as discussed above. The aforesaid orders shall be complied by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the said amounts under section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, in the peculiar fact and circumstances there is no order as to payment of compensation. The case of complainant is disposed of accordingly.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not understanding the fact that after disability certificate is received on 4.8.2017 from OP No.3, they have revised the PPO book. So, there is no any delay on their part. Further, he submitted that only after filing of the case, they could know that the complainant has a disability son and for that they took prompt step for sanction of pension. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
9. While going through the complaint, it is found that all the facts were admitted and disability certificate was issued by OP No.3 on 4.8.2017 and the pension was sanctioned on 28.8.2017. It appears from material that after the case was filed, the appellants could know about the disable son of the complainant and took steps about sanction of pension for such child. Thus, we are of the view that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.
10. The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
