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.1095/2016

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 Jambunath
Aged 62 years (Since deceased)
S/o Mr Channaveerappa
R/at Near Water Tank
Haripura Extension
Yantrapura Post
Harihar – 577602

Proposed Parties/ by LRs
a) Smt Kamalamma

    W/o Late Jambunath
    Aged 56 years

 b) Sri Vijaya Kumar

     S/o Late Jambunath
     Aged 33 years
     
 c) Smt Mamatha

     D/o Late Jambunath
    Aged 30 years
     
 d) Smt Rekha

     D/o Late Jambunath
     Aged 28 years
     

  All are residing at New Harlapura,
  Near Water Tank, Harihar,
  Davanagere District-577 602                                  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.368/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimoga (for short, the District Forum).

2.       Perused the Impugned Order & Grounds of Appeal and None appeared for parties to the Appeal, hence, the arguments of the parties taken as heard.

3.       On Perusal of the records, it reveals that the Complainant was 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 51 years by rendering past service of 21 years & actual service of 08 years and he received his monthly pension at Rs.956/- w.e.f 30.11.2005 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 04.01.2014 for revision of his Monthly Pension, but OP refused to revise his monthly pension.  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 weightage as claimed by him; further Appellant contended that he availed early pension at the age of 54 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 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, 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, 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 directing 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 @ 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 dated 01.06.2015 passed in Consumer Complaint No.368/2014 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 319 days in filing Appeal is hereby condoned by considering the reason 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