Karnataka

StateCommission

A/269/2016

The Assistant Provident Fund - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lokesh H - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :08.02.2016

Date of Disposal :27.02.2023

 

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

 

DATED : 27.02.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL No.269/2016

 

 

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Sub-Regional Office

Peenya

Bengaluru - 560 058                                                     Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

 

- Versus -

1. Mr Lokesh H

    S/o Mr Henjarappa

    R/o 1^st Main Agrahara

    Sira Town

    Tumkuru – 572 102

 

2. The Divisional Controller

    KSRTC Tumkur Division

    Divisional Office Bus Stand

    Tumkuru                                                                             Respondents

 

: ORDER :

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by OP1 aggrieved by the Order dated 27.11.2015 passed in Complaint No.106/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkuru (for short, the District Forum).

 

 

2.       Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for Appellant. None appeared on behalf of Respondent, their arguments taken as heard.

3.       Admittedly, Complainant was an employee of OP2 with effect from 01.03.1985 and became member of OP1; contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971; continued to contribute subsequently to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995 and retired from the service on 01.03.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation.  OP1/Appellant herein, placed ex-parte before the District Forum. OP2 contested the case & admitted the duration of service of the Complainant and contribution made towards being a member of Family Pension Scheme 1971.  However, District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint and directed OP1 to re-calculate the pension payable to the Complainant by giving weightage of two years and also extend the minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service, from the date of retirement of the Complainant with interest @ 12% p.a, on the arrears amount payable and annual relief as per Para 32 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and cost of Rs.2,000/-  to the Complainant,  which is impugned by the Appellant contending that PPO number furnished by the Complainant is incorrect as the same is not tallying with the PPO No.PY/PNY/00023427 furnished by the Complainant and the same pertains to one Mr Gopala Gowda, as per Document No.24 produced along with Appeal Memorandum.

4.       Thus the dispute raised by the Appellant, is only with regard to the PPO number furnished by the Complainant which is averred as wrong, alleging that it pertains to someone else. In this regard, let us examine whether OP1/Appellant herein has settled the entitled Monthly Pension of the Complainant fixed at Rs.899/- w.e.f 02.03.2011 under PPO No.PY/PNY/00023427 is correct or not?  Whether any deficiency in service on the part of OP1 in not settling the pension in time?

5.       On perusal of Annexure-B, the Document No.19 - the copy of Complaint produced along with Appeal Memorandum wherein it is seen that the Complainant raised a Consumer Complaint bearing No.106/2014 u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkur and in Para 4 of the Complaint, Complainant clearly averred that “OP1 settled the Monthly Pension of the Complainant w.e.f 02.03.2011 under PPO No.PY/PNY/00023427 at Rs.899/- per month”.  The Document No.24 produced by the Appellant is the copy of the PPO of Gopala Gowda K, wherein, under the Head ‘Pension 95 Details’ claim ID PPO No.PY/PNY/130900012928 and the Claimant’s Name appears as ‘Gopala Gowda K’.  Thus on comparison of these two documents, the contention of the Appellant seems to be incorrect, the same cannot be accepted and PPO No.PY/PNY/ 00023427 is belongs to somebody is un-acceptable. Further, no document is produced by the Appellant to substantiate his contention that the Complainant is not eligible for his claim for extension of weightage of two years and this act of Appellant in not fixing the Monthly Pension properly, amounts to deficiency in service. It is for the Appellant to verify the correct PPO number and revise the Monthly Pension of the Complainant.  In the circumstances, Impugned Order passed by the District Forum in so far as re-fixation of the Monthly Pension of the Complainant by giving weightage of two years is just and proper.  However, in our view, awarding of interest at the rate of 12% p.a is slightly on higher side and reducing the same to 8% p.a would meet the ends of justice. With regard to benefit under Para 32 of the scheme i.e., Annual Relief, it is only Central Government which can grant such reliefs and not the OP, as such the same cannot be granted by the OP.

          With the above observation, Appeal is allowed in part.  OP-1 is directed to re-calculate the monthly pension payable to the Complainant, by giving weightage of two years with arrears as per Employees Pension Scheme 1995 with interest @ 8% p.a and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant within 3 months from the Date of this Order.

6.       The statutory deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

 

 

 

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

 

 

                                                                          President      

*s