BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 858/2017
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, 3rd Floor, S.L.V. Towers, Parvathi Nagar, Bellari 583 103. (By Smt. Nandita Haldipur) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
Sri Mohammed Jaffer, S/o Hussain Sab, Age 70 years, R/o Door No.826, Dataar Manzil, Behind Old KHB Quarters, Near HLC Canal, Bellari Road, Hospet 583 201. (Served absent) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.27.02.2017 passed in CC.No.191/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bellary.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that the father of the complainant was an employee in TSP Ltd., Hospet, he left the service on 16.02.2002 prior to attaining the age of superannuation, hence, he is not claimed superannuation pension. The complainant also opted for reduced pension and he has been receiving the same from last several years. Subsequently, he made an application in Form No.10D claiming pension. Accordingly, the Opposite Party issued an order by fixing the pension to the complainant, but, the complainant sought for refixing of the pension by filing a complaint. The complainant is a member of the Pension Scheme of 1971 and subsequently he was continued with 1995 Scheme. After considering his service and as per the circular issued by the head office of appellant, they have provided two years weightage to the complainant and enhanced the pension and also given to the complainant. He has received arrears of the revised pension from the Opposite Party. Inspite of that, he filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in fixing the pension. The District Commission after trial, allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to refix the pension.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Party is in appeal. Heard the arguments of appellant.
4. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order, the respondent claimed for refixation of the pension by providing two years weightage as per the new amendment EPF Scheme 1995. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for appellant submits that as per the circular issued by the Head Office of the respondent, this respondent has provided two years of weightage and the arrears of the revised pension also paid to the respondent, hence, prayed to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. When the complainant already received the revised pension as per the new Scheme, the question of direction against the appellant for refixation of the pension does not arise at all. The District Commission without considering the benefits provided by the appellant to the respondent had directed this appellant to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs and directed to refix the pension along with interest without any basis. Hence, the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
