Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/79/2024

KRISHAN MURARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP BHARDWAJ

16 Dec 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	79 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	21.08.2024
Date of Decision	:	16.12.2024

 

1]       Krishan Murari Son of Sh. Ramji Dass Resident of #50, Phulkian Enclave, Mini Secretariate, Patiala-147001

2]       Hardeep Singh Sarangal Son of Sr. Sh. Kartar Singh Resident of House No. 1580, Phase -5, Mohali- 160059.

3]       Deepak Son of Sh. Ramsarup Resident of House No. 625E, Kushal Vihar, Patiala Gate, Nabha District Patiala- 147201.

....Complainants.

Versus

1]       Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional/Subregional Office, Chandigarh., SCO 4-7, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Authorised signatories.

 

2]       Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension)., SCO No. 4-7, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

 

3]       Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), SCO No. 4-7, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

 

4]       The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, SCO No.125-127, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its authorized signatories.

….Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MR. RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:      

 

Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainants.         

Sh. Gaurav Tangri, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 3.

None for opposite party No.4.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

Brief facts:-

                   In brief, the case of the complainants is that they were employees of opposite party No.4 and were depositing the EPF contribution with opposite parties No.1 to 3 towards their provident fund as per following details:-

Description	Krishan Murari (complainant  No.1)	Hardeep Singh Sarangal (complainant No.2)	Deepak (complainant No.3)
Date of appointment.	19.02.1986	14.02.1985	27.10.1988
Date of superannuation	31.10.2015	30.06.2016	31.12.2015
UAN Number	100201058481	100165671885	100131735174
PPO No./Date/ Pension	PB/CHD/00038141	PB/CHD/00033759	PB/CHD/00032513
EPF Number	PB/CHD/10150/335	PB/CHD/0010150/300	PB/CHD/10150/168
Employers Contribution	₹14,10,963/-	₹35,27,198/-	₹9,31,278/-
Employees Contribution	₹17,04,335/-	₹40,91,381/-	₹12,16,081/-
Date of application for higher pension.	02.04.2023	21.04.2023	14.04.2023
Acknowledgment Number	230402135907002391181	230421163016006825301	230414165840004411281
Verification of joint option form	17.09.2023 28.09.2023 04.11.2023	29.09.2023	28.09.2023
Clarification of joint option form	27.09.2023 03.10.2023 04.06.2024	29.09.2023	04.10.2023
Date of compliance given by OP No.4.	29.09.2023	29.09.2023	29.09.2023

 

2]                It has been stated that the employees are covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the act originally did not provide for any pension scheme and Section 6A was introduced to the said Act by way of an amendment made in 1995 which contemplated a scheme for the employees' pension. It has further been stated that it provided that the pension fund was to comprise of deposit of 8.33% of the employer's contribution towards provident fund corpus as per the prevailing Statute and paragraph 11 of the Scheme defined the determination of pensionable salary to the employees according to which maximum pensionable salary was Rs.5,000/- which was later-on enhanced to ₹6,500/-. It has further been stated that this pensionable salary was increased to ₹15,000/- by notification dated 22^nd August 2014 which was to be effective from 1^st September, 2014. It has further been stated that when the employees approached the Provident Fund Commissioner demanding revised pension, the same was refused by the Provident Fund Commissioner on the ground that there was cut off date to exercise option for taking benefit under the revised pension scheme. It has further been stated that the matter reached up-to Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme held in its judgement passed in Civil Appeal No. (S) 10013-10014 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.33032- 33033) decided on 04.10.2016 held in Para 11 that “11. The above apart in a situation where the deposit of the employer's share at 12% has been on the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, we do not see how the Provident Fund Commissioner could have been aggrieved to file the L.P.A. before the Division Bench of the High Court. All that the Provident Fund Commissioner is required to do in the case is an adjustment of accounts which in turn would have benefited some of the employees. At best what the Provident Fund Commissioner could do and which we permit him to do under the present order is to seek a return of all such amounts that the concerned employees may have taken or withdrawn from their Provident Fund Account before granting them the benefit of the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme.” It has further been stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further allowed a percentage of 8.33% of full wages to be considered towards the pension contribution which has entitled the complainants to revision of pension. The difference of amount (which was received towards Provident Fund at the time of retirement) was to be received by the Provident Fund Commission as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court before granting the benefit of proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 were required to revise the pension of the complainants immediately on receipt of first request of the complainants in 2018. The judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. (S) 10013-10014 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.33032- 33033) decided on 04.10.2016 has been by the complaiants annexed as Annexure C-7 alongwith the complaint.

3]                It has further been stated that thereafter in Madhya Pradesh, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner demanded interest on the amount to be deposited by the employees/pensioners and the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W.P.No.4979/2017 titled as ‘Kushlesh Kumar Gorana Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioners and another’ decided on 03.01.2018, Annexure C-8 held that there was no direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to deposit the Provident Fund Amount by the employees/pensioners with interest, therefore, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was directed to accept the amount from the petitioners without interest.

4]                It has further been stated that the complainants had been requesting opposite parties No.1 to 3 since 2017- 2018 to revise their pension as per the revised amendment in the Pension Act duly interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court but they are delaying the matter on one pretext and the other. It has further been stated that initially when requests were made by the complainants, the opposite parties informed that the matter was under consideration and lateron in the year 2023, the opposite parties informed the complainants to apply the joint option online, which the complainants did vide online applications, acknowledgments  whereof have been annexed Annexure C-9, C-10 and C-11 alongwith the complaint.

5]                It has further been stated that the online joint option application form created by the opposite parties, which the complainants were required to fill up to get the revision of the pension, a ‘mandate declaration’ is required to be clicked by the complainants along with the application form without which the application form does not proceed further. It has further been stated that this mandate declaration provides that complainants agree to pay for the interest on the amount to be deposited by them which is totally unfair and against the interest of the complainants. It has further been stated that the online application form cannot be submitted without consenting and admitting to the mandate declaration. It has further been stated that the declaration required to be agreed by the complainants is contrary to the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India referred above. It has further been stated that there is no mention of deposit of interest alongwith the amount to be deposited by the complainants and by making a mandatory condition in the online form, totally in contravention to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, amounts to unfair trade practices by the opposite parties.

6]                It has further been stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as ‘The Employees Provident Fund Organization and another Versus Sunil Kumar’ decided on 4.11.2022 has held, “(ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of R.C.Gupta (supra) so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (pre-amendment) pension scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall implement the directives contained in the said judgement within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph.”

7]                It has further been stated that despite the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the revision in pension should be allowed by the opposite parties within 8 weeks i.e. up-to 31.12.2022, from the date of decision i.e. 04.11.2022 and the opposite parties have not complied with the same till date. It has further been stated that since the complainants claim has not been settled by the opposite parties within the time frame, as such, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest as per Section 17-A of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, which pertains to the payment of pension and consequences for not settling the claim within the time frame.

8]                It has further been stated that the complainants have applied for revision of the pension as per the performa provided by the opposite parties No.1 to 3, however, nothing has been done till date, ignoring the fact that the application for revision of the pension has been obtained and acknowledged. It has further been stated that opposite parties No.1 to 3 have also sought clarification from the opposite party No.4, which was also verified by opposite party No.4 but nothing has been done till date.

9]                Alleging negligence, deficient in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3, thereby causing mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainants, the complainants have prayed to declare the declaration submitted along with the Joint Option Form to be unfair in accordance with Section 47 (1)(ii) read with Section 49(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; direct the opposite parties to release the pension amount of the complainants immediately after adjusting/receiving the PF principal amount to be deposited by the complainants with opposite paries No.1 to 3 without claiming any interest and penalties of any kind; pay interest @18% on the amount of pension payable to the complainants from the date of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 04.11.2022 till realization; pay compensation of ₹5 Lacs on account of mental agony, physical harassment, financial loss caused to the complainants and deficiency in service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties besides claiming  ₹1 Lac towards cost of litigation.

Reply of opposite parties No.1 to 3:-

1. Opposite parties No.1 to 3, in their written reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that their office had received all 3 cases for pension on higher wages, in which, one case PBCHD/10150/300 of Sh. Hardeep Singh Sarangal has been processed and a demand notice has been issued and dispatched on 16.10.2024. It has further been stated that in respect of the other 2 cases of Sh. Krishan Murari bearing P.F. Code PB/CHD/10150/335 and Sh. Deepak bearing PBCHD/10150/168, the answering opposite parties raised some objections regarding wages details/copies of the attached 3-A submitted by the employer and issued the necessary direction via email dated 17.10.2024 (Annexure R-1/1) for further action. It has further been stated that as soon as a reply is received, the opposite parties will process the cases accordingly. It has further been stated that pension revision is a time-consuming process that cannot be compared to other claim settlement methods. It has further been stated that it has several tests and all calculations are done manually. It has further been stated that opposite parties No.1 to 3 are inundated with such cases and each is being addressed as quickly as feasible. It has further been stated that all the directions contained in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been implemented by opposite parties No.1 to 3. Lastly prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made by opposite parties No.1 to 3.

Short reply of opposite party No.4:-

1.               Opposite Party No.4, while contesting the complaint, has raised a preliminary objection that the complainants do not fall within the definition of consumer so far as opposite partyNo.4 is concerned. However, on merits, it has been stated that the relief has been sought by the complainants against opposite parties No.1 to 3 only and their claim is for enhanced pension. It has further been stated that whatever amount opposite party No.4 had to pay to the Provident Fund Authorities, the same already stands paid and there is no dispute regarding the same in the present complaint. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, opposite party No.4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.
2.  
3. In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and controverted those contained in written reply of opposite parties No1 to 3.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of this case including the written arguments, very carefully.

Objection regarding non-maintainability of the complaint:-

15]              During the course of arguments, Counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3 raised objection with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. On the other hand, Counsel for the complainants has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Versus Shiv Kumar Joshi., III(1999) CPJ 36 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the argument that “the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner being Central Government, cannot be held to be rendering ‘service’ within the meaning and scheme of the Act.”. In view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Versus Shiv Kumar Joshi (supra), the complaint is very well maintainable before this Commission. In our view, the complainants, being beneficiary of the services being provided by opposite parties No.1 to 3, have rightly instituted the complaint before this Commission in accordance with provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As such, this objection stands rejected.

Objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction:-

16]              Now coming to the objection raised by opposite parties No.1 to 3, in their reply, with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, it may be stated here that the complainants have filed the present complaint jointly and the contribution amount being more than Rs.50 Lakhs brings the present complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Even otherwise, since the complainants have challenged certain condition(s) specially Condition No.7 of the  Joint Option Form, Annexures C-9, C-10 & C-11, to be unfair, therefore, in view of provisions of Section 47(1)(a)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, which casts ample jurisdiction upon this Commission to entertain complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees” (now reduced to two crores), this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, which if fully maintainable before us. Therefore, the objection raised by opposite parties No.1 to 3 that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction stands rejected.  

Objection taken by opposite party No.4 with regard to complainants not consumers qua it (opposite party No.4).

 

17]              So far as this objection is concerned, it may be stated here that the complainants are very much the consumer of opposite party No.4 in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled ‘Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Bhavani’, AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2957, wherein it has been held as under:-

“20. Dr. Padia's submissions regarding the non-applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to the case of the respondent must also be rejected on account of the fact that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who is the person responsible for the working of the 1995 Pension Scheme, must be held to be a 'service giver' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Nor is this a case of rendering of free service or rendering of service under a contract of personal service so as to bring the relationship between the appellant and respondent within the concept of 'master and servant'. In our view, the respondent comes squarely within the definition of 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant for implementation of the Scheme. The same is the case in the other appeals as well.

 

21. In fact, the same proposition has been explained in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi [2000 (1) SCC 98], wherein in relation to the operation of the Consumer Protection Act to the Employees' Provident Fund Schemes it was held as follows:

 

"A perusal of the Scheme clearly and unambiguously indicates that it is a 'service' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) and the member a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It is, therefore, without any substance to urge that the services under the Scheme are rendered free of charge and, therefore, the Scheme is not a 'service' under the Act. Both the State as well as the National Commission have dealt with this aspect in detail and rightly come to the conclusion that the Act was applicable in the case of the Scheme on the ground that its member was a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) and the Scheme was a 'service' under Section 2(1)(o)."

                   As such, this objection raised by opposite party No.4 stands rejected.

Observations/findings of this Commission on merits of the case:-

18]              Now coming to merits of the case, there is no dispute between the parties that the  complainants are not entitled for revision of pension in accordance with the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and it has vehemently been admitted by opposite parties No.1 to 3 in their reply that they have received all 3 cases for revision of pension, in which one case PBCHD/10150/300 of complainant no.2 (Sh. Hardeep Singh Sarangal)  has been processed and demand notice has been issued and dispatched on 16.10.2024. It has further been mentioned that in the cases of complainant No.1 (Sh. Krishan Murari) and Complainant No.3 (Sh. Deepak), bearing PF code PB/CHD/10150/335 and PB/CHD/10150/168 respectively, some objections regarding wages details/copies of the attached 3-A submitted by opposite party No.4 have been raised and necessary directions have been issued via email dated 17.10.2024, Annexure R-1/1 for further action. Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have stated that the cases will be processed after receiving the reply. However, firstly no demand notice has been placed on record along with the reply and secondly the demand notice and the emails being relied upon have been sent after the issuance and service of notice in the present complaint. The complainants have submitted their applications for higher pension on 02.04.2023, 21.04.2023 and 14.04.2023 respectively and more than one year has already been elapsed, as such, the act and conduct of opposite parties No.1 to 3 clearly proves deficiency in services on their part. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 came into action only after filing of the present complaint, which is clearly proven from the date of demand notice i.e. 17.10.2024 issued to complainant No.2 (Sh. Hardeep Singh Sarangal) as mentioned in reply and emails dated 17.10.2024, Annexure R-1/1. Since there is no dispute in the revision of pension of the complainants and being the pension amount as a source of livelihood, the revision of the same cannot be delayed for any reasons. We, therefore, held opposite parties No.1 to 3 deficient in rendering proper services to the complainants.

19]              During the course of arguments, the demand notices, dated 27.11.2024 issued to complainant No.1 (Sh. Krishan Murari), dated 04.10.2024 issued to complainant No.2 (Sh. Hardeep Singh Sarangal) and dated 27.11.2024 issued to complainant No.3 (Sh. Deepak) were perused and a careful perusal of the same proves the demand of amounts of ₹15,38,774/- from complainant No.1, ₹32,20,224/- from complainant No.2 and ₹11,51,916/- from complainant No.3 (up-to 31.01.2025). There is no bifurcation and clarification of these amounts given in these demand notices, which have been demanded from the complainants. On asking by the Bench, opposite parties No.1 to 3 failed to give any justification of the demanded amounts. The demand raised vide these demand notices is, thus, totally arbitrary and against the interest of the complainants. Counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3 argued that the complainants have to deposit the amounts received towards provident fund with opposite parties No.1 to 3 along with interest, however, when a query was raised by the Bench that on what basis, the interest is being demanded from the complainants, which is totally against the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3 failed to reply. The complainants have relied upon Section 49(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the CPA 2019). Section 49(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 2019 reads as “…….without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the State Commission may also declare any terms of contract, which is unfair to any consumer, to be null and void”. On behalf of the complainants, it has been argued that opposite parties No.1 to 3 have obtained Joint Option Form(s), which has been placed on record as Annexure C-9, Annexure C-10 and Annexure C-11 and Condition No. 7 of the said form is unfair. Condition No.7 is reproduced hereunder:-

“I hereby jointly opt along with my employer to pay full amount of contribution on salary exceeding wage ceiling under erstwhile para 11(3) (since deleted) and para 11(4) of EPS 95 along with interest upto the last date of the month in which payment is made, in accordance with the judgment dated 04.11.2022 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court through my last employer within such period as may be directed by EPFO after verification of my joint option. If the full amount payable is not deposited by my last employer within such period as may be directed by EPFO after verification of my joint option, this joint option shall be liable to be treated as null and void.”            

20]    It may be stated here that unfair contract has been defined under Section 2(46) of CPA 2019 as per which “unfair contract” means a contract between a manufacturer or trader or service provider on one hand, and a consumer on the other, having such terms which cause significant change in the rights of such consumer, including the following namely:-

“(i) to (v)  xxxxx

(vi)     imposing on the consumer any unreasonable      charge, obligation or condition which puts such      consumer to disadvantage.”

21]              In our view, opposite parties No.1 to 3 are not entitled to any interest on the amount being adjusted towards the revision of the pension. They are not revising and releasing the pension with any interest and since there is no order of depositing or adjusting the amount towards revision of pension with interest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, there is no occasion for opposite parties No.1 to 3 to demand any amount towards the interest from the complainants. Counsel for the complainants relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, W.P.No.4979/2017 titled ‘Kushlesh Kumar Gorana Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another’ decided on 03.01.2018, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that the petitioner is not liable to pay the interest on such amount which he withdrew from his account and now depositing for the revision of pension. The relevant paras of the said judgment reads thus:-

          “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Gupta (Supra) has held that the date mentioned in the proviso to Section 11(3) of the Pension Scheme are not the cut of date to determine the eligibility of the employer and the employee to indicate their option. A beneficial scheme ought not to be allowed to defeat by reference to cut-off date particularly in a situation where the employer had deposited the 12% of actual salary and not the 12% of ceiling limit of Rs.5000-6000/- per month as the case may be, therefore, directed all the Provident Fund Commissioner to permit the employees to return such amount which they have withdrawn and their pension be fixed accordingly. Para 11 of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced below:-

“11. The above apart in a situation where the deposit of the employer's share at 12% has been on the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, we do not see how the Provident Fund Commissioner could have been aggrieved to file the L.P.A. before the Division Bench of the High Court. All that the Provident Fund Commissioner is required to do in the case is an adjustment of accounts which in turn would have benefited some of the employees. At best what the Provident Commissioner could do and which we permit him to do under the present order is to seek a return of all such amounts that the concerned employees may have taken or withdrawn from their Provident Fund Account before granting them the benefit of the Proviso to clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. Once such a return is made in whichever cases such return is due, consequential benefits in terms of this order will be granted to the said employees.”

          In the aforesaid paragraph, the Hon'ble Apex Court has permitted the Provident Fund Commissioner to seek return of all such amount which the employees have withdrawn from the Provident Fund Account. The Hon'ble Apex Court has not directed the Provident Fund Commissioner to claim interest alongwith such amount of Provident Fund.

          The petitioner claimed re-fixation of the pension on the basis of actual salary exceeding wage limit, but the respondent no.1 has rejected his claim by order dated 17.10.2012. The respondent no.1 has now permitted him to revise the pension after the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment; therefore, the petitioner was not at fault to withdraw the amount of provident fund. Hence he is not liable to pay the interest on such amount which he withdrew from his account and now depositing for the revision of pension.”

22]              It may be stated here that the aforesaid judgment has not been disputed by opposite parties No.1 to 3. Moreover, no justification has come from the opposite parties in raising the argument of depositing the amount by the complainants along with interest. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 have further failed to justify and disclose the amount towards interest in each case, rate of interest to be charged, tenure of interest and also the basis of claiming such interest. Since there is no direction of demanding the interest on withdrawal amount by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, in our concerted view, the demand of interest from the complainants on the amount already withdrawn by them (complainants) is not justifiable. Accordingly, the same cannot be raised or demanded from the complainants in any case. Thus, in view of above discussion, it is clear that Condition No.7 of the Joint Option Form(s) constitutes an unfair trade contract as defined under Section 49(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the said condition unfairly shifts the responsibility for the timely deposit of the contribution and interest to the complainants despite the fact that the employer is primarily responsible for making the deposit.

23]              Apart from above, the complainants have also relied upon Section 17-A of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, which reads as under:-

• 17A. Payment of Pension -  The claims, complete in all respects submitted along with the requisite documents shall be settled and benefit amount paid to the beneficiaries within thirty days from the date of its receipt by the Commissioner. If there is any deficiency in the claim, the same shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant within thirty days from the date of receipt of such application. In case the Commissioner fails without sufficient cause to settle a claim complete in all respects within thirty days, the Commissioner shall be liable for the delay beyond the said period and penal interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum may be charged on the benefit amount and the same may be deducted from the salary of the Commissioner.”

24]              In the present case, the applications got submitted by complainants on 02.04.2023, 21.04.2023 and 14.04.2023 respectively and therefore, the process has to be completed within 30 days in accordance with Section 17A of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. No deficiency of the claim has been communicated in accordance with Section 17A ibid, meaning thereby, there was no deficiency in the claims. Emails Annexure R-1/1 are dated 17.10.2024 i.e. much after submission of applications by the complainants and that too after institution of the present consumer complaint. In our view, these emails now sent by the opposite parties seemed to fill-up the lacuna and cover up their deficiency. Therefore, Opposite party No.2 – Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) is liable to pay 12% interest beyond the period of 30 days as per Section 17-A of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  

25]              Besides above, the complainants have also suffered immense mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in rendering service on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3, for which, they need to be suitably compensated.

26]              For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with costs, against opposite parties No.1 to 3 and they, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-

(i)       to revise and release the amount of pension, after adjusting the amount of Provident Fund already paid to the complainants in the amount of pension payable to complainants, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of submission of application forms by the complainants till the date of release of pension amount in the accounts of the complainants.

(ii)      not to demand and charge any kind of interest on the amount to be adjusted while revising the pension of the complainants as per  relief granted at serial no.(i) above.

(iii)     to pay interest @12% to each of the complainant(s) from the date of expiry of 30 days of the submission of applications as provided in Section 17-A of Employees Pension Scheme 1952.

(iv)     to pay to each of the complainant(s) compensation to the tune of ₹50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and unfair trade practice and cost of litigation to the tune of ₹35,000/- [(to each of the complainant(s)], within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default i.e. after expiry of stipulated period of 45 days till realization.

27]              However, the present complaint stands dismissed against Opposite Party No.4 – The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited with no order as to costs.

28]              Pending application(s), if any, in this case stands disposed of accordingly.

29]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

30]              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

16.12.2024.

(JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad