Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/382

JAI RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AIR INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

20 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 20.05.2016

Date of Decision : 02.06.2016

Appeal No. 382/11

 

(Arising out of the order dated 10.06.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.208/08 (old No.326/07)  by the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- VII)

In the matter of:

Jai Ram,

230, SFS, Hauz Khas,

New Delhi-110016.                                                                                      …..........Appellant

 

VERSUS

1. General Manager,

Human Resource Development,

Air India, ASD Building,

IGI Airport,

New Delhi.

 

2. The Chairman & Managing Director,

AIR India, Nariman Point,

Mumbai.

 

3. M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India,

New India Building, 2^nd Floor,

S.V. Road, Santa Cruz (West),

1.                                                                                        ….....Respondents

                                                                

CORAM

 

O. P. Gupta - Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 O.P. Gupta - Member (Judicial)

 

1. The complainant has come in the present appeal against order dated 10.06.2011 passed by District Forum-VII in Complaint Case No.208/08 (old no.326/07). The complaint of appellant was dismissed.

 

2. According to appellant, he retired from the service of respondent on 30.11.2001 as Asstt. General Manager from IGI Airport, New Delhi. He contributed Rs.92,841/- till November, 2001 from his salary towards Air India Employees Self Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme. He was given understanding by employers viz. Air India that he would be getting Rs.3672/- per month as pension under this scheme. He deposited cheque dated 22.11.2001 for Rs.3571/- which was refunded to him on 30.12.2003.  He was not getting any pension. Employees retired before October, 2001 contributed more amount towards pension and were getting pension. Employees who retired after November, 2001 contributed more amount towards pension scheme and were not getting pension. He was informed by Air India Employees Self Contributory Pension Scheme  that his request to refund the pension contributed was not possible as per pension trust deed, such employees have to avail pension benefits which would be till life time. He was getting Rs.3344/- per month or Rs. 278.67 per month vide Policy No.12712 at purchase price of Rs.47707/- w.e.f. 29.04.2004 from LIC. He was not able to understand how he was responsible for loss of Rs.44,841.94 paise from his contribution of Rs.92,841.14.  What he was actually getting was  less than the aid  paid to the widows and old age people by the Govt. of  NCT of Delhi. He prayed for payment of pension @Rs.3672/- per month.

 

3. Initially, the complaint was proceeded exparte vide order dated 18.07.2007. The OP filed an appeal and case was remand back to decide the same afresh on merits after giving opportunities to the OP.  OP-1 filed WS stating that the situation prior to execution of 2^nd deed of variation whereby the pensions of all the employees retiring after 30.10.2001 could be revised and reduced in accordance with the directions of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court.  Since the complainant retired after 30.10.2001 he was also covered within the ambit of amendments in corporate in the second deed of variation. The pension was again calculated in the light of the amendments after apportioning the losses sustained by the pension fund on account of excessive distribution of benefit in the past, loss on investment and certain other reasons. The loss apportioned to the contribution of the complaint is clearly revealed in the statement of pension contribution of the complainant. New pension, Rs.1672/- being half yearly was arrived at after apportioning such losses to the contribution of the complainant, which was paid to the complainant regularly.

 

4. After going through the material on record, the District Forum found that pension of complainant was reduced from Rs.3571/- to 1672/- because he had retired after 30.11.2001. The total contribution of complainant was not Rs.92,841/- but was Rs.85,472/- out of which Rs. 44,841/- was apportioned on loss sustained by pension trust. Therefore, amount of Rs.40,630/- remained as contribution on which annuity was purchased.  Since during pendency of appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court, there was delay in purchasing annuity for the complainant, amount @ Rs.9.5% per annum on total contribution was added to remaining contribution. The said sum worked out Rs.7076/- and total amount to Rs.47,706/- for which annuity was finally purchased for complainant. Hon’ble High Court found trust was suffering losses which had to be distributed to the contributions of the employees, otherwise the trust would have been left with no pension. In the larger interest of employees to uniformly apportion the loss sustained by the trust to the contribution of all future retirees was taken. The complaint was dismissed.

 

5. In appeal the complainant has stated that decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and Supreme Court inMr. Kuriahouse V Cherion V/s. Air India Employees elf Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme was for employees who retired after 31^st October, 2001. The error in the judgement of District Forum took place because the District Forum has taken the retirement of appellant as 30.10.2008 instead of 30.10.2001. It may be so but the question is whether Consumer Foras have jurisdiction in the matter.

 

6. The counsel for respondent relied upon the decision of National Commission in Executive Engineer PAO Vs. Smt. Putul Dom (2013) CPJ 52 to make out that in case of government servant, dispute relating to retirement benefits are not covered by Consumer Protection Act.

 

7. Per contra,  the appellant wanted to distinguish the aforesaid decision by submitting that it pertains to government employees and not private employees. He placed reliance on decision in State of Haryana Vs. Leela Ram IV (2008) CPJ 146 NC to make out that  member of EPF is consumer.

 

8. I have considered the rival submissions. EPF is applicable to employees of factories, private industries etc. The appellant is not a member of EPF. As per his own case, he was an employee of Air India which is controlled and owned by Government of India. That is why it was found amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court.

 

9. I may mention that parties filed incomplete copy of the judgement of Bombay High Court and judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay is reported in 2003 (6) Bombay CR 219 and runs into 30 paras whereas the parties have filed the copy of para 1 and para 29 & 30 only.  The question of writ being maintainable was discussed in para 26 to 28 of the judgement which have been withheld. It was held that Air India was a government authority and amenable to writ.

 

10. Similarly, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court is reported in VIII (2005) SLT 29 and contains 58 paras.  The parties have filed first seven pages of the judgement and withheld the remaining portion.  Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in a way it has maintained the findings of Bombay High Court that respondent is a government body.

 

 

11. In view of the above discussion, I find that decision cited by counsel for respondent applies to case in hand. The complaint was not maintainable and consumer Fora has no jurisdiction. Thus order of the District Forum is upheld though on different  ground.

 

12. The appeal is dismissed.

 

13. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost and one copy be sent to District Forum for information.

 

14. FDR, if any, be released after completion of due formalities.

 

15. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)