Date of Filing :18.05.2016

                                                         Date of Disposal : 22.02.2023

BEFORE THEKARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:22.02.2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

APPEAL No.1083/2016

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Sub-Regional Office
Kartik Plaza, Opp. Mallikarjuna Theatre
Durgigudi
Shivamogga - 577201
(By Mr Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, Advocate)                    Appellant

 - Versus-

Mr Gangadhar

Aged 67 years (Since deceased)
S/o Sri Siddappa

R/at Mahalakshmi Extension

Old Harlapura, Guttur Post

Harihar-577 601

Proposed Parties/ by LRs
1) Smt Gayatriyamma

    Aged 62 years

    W/o Late Gangadhar

 2) Smt Rajeshwari

     Aged 46 years

     W/o Basavaraj

     D/o Late Gangadhar

     
 3) Sri Halesh

     Aged 42 years

     S/o Late Gangadhar

     
 4) Smt Shivaganga

     Aged 45 years

     W/o Rajashekar

     D/o Late Gangadhar

5) Smt Parvathi

    Aged 30 years

    W/o Basavaraj

    D/o Late Gangadhar

All are residing at Guttur Colony

Mahalakshmi Badavane

Haleharlapur

Post: Guttur

Harihar, Davanagere District-577 601                       Respondents

(By Mr Ravindra R Nadgir, Advocate)

:ORDER:

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 01.06.2015 passed in Consumer Complaint No.355/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimoga (for short, the District Forum).

2.       Perused the Impugned Order & grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for Appellant and Respondent.

3.       On perusal of the records, it reveals that the Complainant is the employee of Mysore Kirloskar, Harihar; he was the member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952; later he became member of employees EPS 1971; he continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme 1995; he retired  from the service on 01.04.2004 at the age of 56 years by rendering past service of 21 years & actual service of 08 years and he has been receiving his monthly pension at Rs.864/- w.e.f 30.12.2004 from OP/Appellant.  The grievance of the Complainant is that during November 2013, he noticed the error in calculation of his entitled Monthly Pension and as such he gave representations to the OP/Appellant on 10.01.2014 for revision of his monthly pension, but, OP refused to revise the same. The OP/Appellant has taken a stand that pensionable service rendered by the Complainant is only 5 years, therefore, he is not eligible for the benefits of two years of weightage as claimed by him; further Appellant contended that complainant availed early pension at the age of 56 years before attaining the age of superannuation and does not fulfil the eligibility of criteria for grant of two years as per Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995 and so also arrears as per Para 32 of the EPS 1995.

4.       As per the observation made by District Forum in Para 4 of the impugned order, the Complainant retired from the service before 24.07.2009 and complied with the condition of Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995 by rendering past service of 21 years and pensionable service of 5 years in total 26 years of service.  Hence, he is entitled for the weightage of two years. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that pensionable service rendered by the complainant is only 5 years seems to be incorrect. With regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension of the Respondent, it is observed that he retired before amendment to 15.06.2007 hence, his monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007.  Further, since the Complainant has not been superannuated the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own Rules & Regulations and should have subjected his Member to his entitlement of Reduced Pension at reduction rate of 3%, as the age of the Member falls short of 58 years, as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995.

5.       The District Forum had directed the OP to re-fix the pension by giving weightage of two years with past service benefits as per un-amended Para 12(3) to (5) of EPS 1995, with cost of Rs.2,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,000/- is just and proper. However, in our view, awarding of interest @ of 9% p.a for the belated payment to be made to the complainant on account of refixation of the pension amount from the date it has fallen due is on higher side and reducing the same to 8% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeal is allowed in part and consequently, the Impugned order 01.06.2015 passed in Consumer Complaint No.355/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimoga is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by the District Forum. In so far as ordered for payment of compensation for deficiency in service and litigation cost by District Forum remains un-disturbed.  The delay of 362 days in filing Appeal is hereby condoned by considering the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of IA.  

6.       Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

                                                President

*s