KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION NO.350/2013
JUDGMENT DTD :13.01.2014
( Appeal filed against the order in EP.No.20/2006 in OP.No.328/2004 on the file of CDRF, Kollam dated : 25.04.2013)
PRESENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT.A.RADHA : MEMBER
SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund
Organization, REVISION PETITIONER
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan,
Pattom.P.O
Thiruvananthapuram
(By Adv.K.V.Karma Chandran, TVPM)
Vs.
K.G.Chacko,
Leela Bhavan, RESPONDENT
Perayam, Mulavana.P.O
Kollam
(By Adv.Kallada.P.Kunjumon, Kollam)
JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Revision petitioner was the counter petitioner in EP.No.20/2006 in OP.No.328/2004 in the CDRF, Kollam. Order of the Forum dated 25.04.2013 fixing the pensionary benefit of the revision counter petitioner at Rs.543/- per month from 01.11.97 along with direction to pay the arrears of pension from the said day is challenged in this revision petition. The facts necessary to decide this revision petition in brief are the following. The revision counter petitioner was an employee and member of employees provident fund scheme. On her retirement from service she applied for pension. Her application for pension was rejected by the revision petitioner, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram. There upon the revision counter petitioner filed OP.No328/2004 seeking pensionary benefits. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner contested the matter. The District Forum passed the following order (as quoted in the EP). The judgment debtor is directed to release all pensionary benefits under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 from 01.01.97 the eligible date with 9 % interest as per provisions coupled with Rs.2000/- as cost of the complainant within one month from 30.06.2005. The said order of the District Forum was challenged before this commission by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in Appeal No.713/2005. This commission dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the District Forum.
2. As per the allegations in the memorandum of revision, obeying the order of the District Forum confirmed by this commission the revision petitioner fixed the pension payable to the revision counter petitioner at Rs.238/- per month. The definite allegation in the memorandum of revision is that all the arrears as per the order in OP.328/2004 had been paid to the revision counter petitioner accordingly. It appears that the revision counter petitioner not satisfied with the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner approached the Forum and filed EP.No.20/2006 to fix the pensionary benefits as according to her the amount fixed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was low and against the provisions of the statute. There upon the impugned order was passed fixing the pensionary benefit of the revision counter petitioner at Rs.543/- per month from 01.11.97 with a direction to pay the arrears accordingly.
3. From the order no material can be gathered to decide the correctness or otherwise of fixing the pension at Rs.543/-. But the question that immediately arises is whether a District Forum can pass such an order in Execution Petition. We have referred to the order of the District Forum in OP.No.328/2004 which only directed the revision petitioner to release all pensionary benefits under the EPS 01.11.97 with interest at 9% per annum. It appears that the amount of pension was not required to be fixed nor was there an order fixing the quantum of compensation. The definite contention is that the revision petitioner has complied with the order of the District Forum confirmed by this Commission.
4. The power of the District Forum to execute its own orders is very limited. Though Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act extends the powers of a civil court under the civil procedure code, the power is limited to trial of the matter such as summoning and enforcing attendance of any defendant or witness examining the witness on oath and issuing of commission for the examination of witness. Though Clause 4 (VI) empowers the rule making authority to prescribe other matters no such provision is so far made. In short, power of execution conferred on a civil court under order 21 CPC is not available with a District Forum. So also Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to a District Consumer Forum. Even if Section 47 of CPC is applicable it appears in the light of the order in OP.328/2004 referred to that fixing of quantum of pension would not be a matter relating to execution discharge or satisfaction of the decree ( order of the District Forum) only limited powers of execution are available under Section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Under Section 25 (3) certificate can be issued to the District Collector and he would proceed to recover any amount due in the same manner as collecting arrears of land revenue. Section 27 is a penal provision. In short a District Forum is powerless to go beyond its own order and pass an order as was done in this case.
5. Reliance was placed on the order of this commission in Revision Petition No.16/2009 in which revision petition was entertained and decided on merits in quite a similar situation. But the question whether an EP would have been maintained legally was never considered.
6. While holding that the District Forum is not entitled to fix quantum of pension when there was only an order directing disbursal of pension, we are not holding that the complainant is not without remedy. If the complainant was actually aggrieved by the order of the revision petitioner fixing her pension consequent to the order of the District Forum and this commission another complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking fixation of the correct quantum of pension would certainly lie. We only held that that can not be done by filing an execution petition.
In view of the conclusion above we allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the District Forum, Kollam in EP.No.20/2006 in OP.No.328/2004 dated 25.04.2013. The parties shall bear their respective costs in these proceedings.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
A.RADHA : MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
BE/
