KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO.223/2011

JUDGMENT DATED : 24.12.2011

PRESENT

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR                            :  MEMBER

1.         The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

            Employees Provident Fund Organization,

            Regional Office 8^th and 9^th Floor,

            Mayoor Bhavan, Cannaught Circus,

            New Delhi -1.

2.         The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,        :  APPELLANTS

          Employees Provident Fund Organization,

            V.K. Complex, Fort Road, Kannur District.

(By Adv. K. Ramachandran Nair)

Vs

1.         P.D. Mathai, S/o Devasia,

            Puthanpurackal House,

            Keezhpally P.O., Kannur District.

2.         C. Pathumma,

            Chevidente Kuzhiyil House,

            Keezhpally P.O., Kannur District.                                  : RESPONDENTS

3.         V.C. Dominic, S/o. Chacko,

      Vadakke Muriyil, Keezhpally P.O.,

      Kannur District.

4.         The Secretary, Board of Trustees,

      Employees Provident Fund,

      State Farms Corporation of India Ltd.,

      No. 14-15, Farms Bhavan, Nehru Place.

5.         The Director,

            Central State Far, Aralam,

            Aralam Farm P.O., (Via.), Peravoor.

( R1, R2 and R3 by Adv. C.P. Peethambaran)
         

JUDGMENT

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR:  MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties in CC 204/2003 before the CDRF, Kannur. By the impugned order dated:29.1.2011, The appellants are under directions to pay to the complainants revised rate of pension with 12% interest from the dates due with cost of Rs.1500/- each. 

2.      The complainants had approached the Forum stating that they had applied for reduced pension consequent to their retirement and that they were given pension at a lesser rate than that was entitled to them.  It was their case that they had more actual service than that was computed by the opposite parties and that the 1^st complainant was entitled to more than Rs.745/- per month and the 2^nd complainant was entitled to more than Rs.396/- per month and the 3^rd complainant was entitled more than Rs.633/- per month.  It was further submitted that the opposite parties did not consider the correct actual service for the computation of the pension thereby they were given only lesser pension.

3.      The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed version contending that the complainants were not consumers as per Section 2(1)(b) of the C.P. Act and that there was no consumer relationship between the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant.  It was also submitted that the complainants were not entitled to more than what was ordered to be paid by the competent authorities.

4.      The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties in their version contended that the statements of the complainants were not true since as per records, the complainants had retired on 15.3.2001, 26.3.2001 and 30.3.2001 respectively.  It was also submitted that the complainants were demanding a higher rate on the belief that they were entitled to retirement benefits who retired after 2005.  It was further submitted that the complainants had opted for reduced pension and as per rule those who retired before attaining the age of 58 would be entitled for a reduced pension deducting 3% for every year prior to the years on attaining the age of 58.  Contending for the position that there was no deficiency in service the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

5.      The evidence consisted of the documents produced from both sides. On the side of the complainant, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked.  On the side of the opposite parties Exts.B1 to B10 were marked which included the pension work sheets of the complainants.

6.      The learned counsel for the appellants/3^rd and 4^th opposite parties vehemently argued before us that since complainants had opted for reduced pension they were entitled to only the amounts shown in the pension calculation sheets produced as Ext.B8, 9 and 10.  It is also argued by the learned counsel that the Forum below had erroneously calculated the pension on the basis of retirement benefits that are entitled to employees who retired after 2005.  It is his very case that the complainants retired much earlier than the cut off period and also before attaining the age of 58.  He has submitted that the complainants had retired on 15.3.2001, 26.3.2001 and 30.3.2001 and the directions of the Forum below to pay the enhanced pension with effect from 1.1.2003, 27.1.2003 and 30.3.2001 respectively cannot be upheld.  On a perusal of the calculation sheets it is found that the opposite parties/appellants had arrived at the amounts ordered to be paid to the complainants after much deliberation.  It is also found that the Forum below made calculations on the basis of the amounts due on the presumption that the complainants had more actual service.  There is no evidence forthcoming to show that the complainants had more actual service than that was taken into consideration by the appellants/opposite parties.

In the result the appeal is allowed, the order dated:29.1.2011 in CC.24/03 is set aside. 

In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Office is directed to forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.

S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR:  MEMBER

VL.