Date of Filing : 03.03.2021

                                                            Date of Disposal : 20.02.2023

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

DATED: 20.02.2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

APPEAL No.216/2021

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Regional Office

Peenya,

Bengaluru  – 560 022.                                                    Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

-Versus -

Sri K R Gururaj

Since deceased

by Legal Heirs

a) Mr Ravikumar K R

    S/o Late K R Gururaj

b) Mrs Lakshmamma

    W/o Late K R Gururaj

c) Mr Seetharamu

    S/o Late K R Gururaj

    all are R/o Vajjanakurike

    at Post Koratagere Taluk

    Tumkuru District                                                      Respondents 

                                                     : ORDER :

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 27A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by JDr/OP aggrieved by the Order dated 06.02.2021 passed in Execution Petition No.22/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumakuru (for short, the District Forum).

2.       Perused the Impugned Order & Grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for Appellant. Inspite of service of Notice on legal representative of Respondent none appeared, hence, arguments of the Respondents is taken as heard.

3.       On perusal of the records, it reveals that the present Appeal is preferred, after the District Forum passed it’s considered detail Order in Execution Petition. In this Appeal, Appellant has taken a stand that the actual service put in by its deceased member/Complainant is only 12+2=14 years, but the District Commission while calculating his entitled Pension, has taken the service put in as 14+2=16 years and directed the Appellant to pay Rs.20,967/- to the Complainant/Respondent.  Therefore, the Impugned Order under execution needs to be set aside as the JDr has fully complied with the Order passed by the District Commission in CC No.41/2013.

4.       It is also relevant to make a mention of the fact that on 04.06.2014 the Appellant had preferred an Appeal bearing No.698/2014 by challenging the impugned order dated 03.09.2013 passed in Complaint No.14/2013 on the file of District Forum, Tumkur and not taken any stand thereon regarding the deductions pertaining to the non-contributory period of 195 days in Past Service and 407 days in Pensionable Service for calculation of entitled Monthly Pension of the Complainant, by not producing any cogent document and this Commission by considering the materials available on the record, has passed its considered Order in Dismissing the Appeal on 21.02.2017.   Consequently, the District Commission proceeded with Execution of its order in EP No.22/2014 after considering the memo of calculation filed by both the parties which is impugned in this Appeal.

5.       In such circumstances, the District Commission is directed to re-examine the dispute raised by the Appellant with regard to total service rendered by the Respondent for calculating the entitled Monthly Pension. Notwithstanding anything, permitting the litigating parties, to get the bone of contention resolved through Conciliation/Mediation or through Lok Adalat, if they desire so and in any case, within the next 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order, since the Complainants/Respondents have been litigating for the past 7 years, possibly for a paltry sum.

6.   With the foregoing observations, the Appeal 216/2021 hereby stands Dismissed.

*

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

                                                      President

*s