KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.591/2016

JUDGEMENT DATED: 31.10.2022

(Against the Order in C.C.No.89/2015 of CDRF, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. K.V. Karmachandran)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. V. Krishnamenon)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

          This appeal is filed by the 1^st opposite party in C.C.No.89/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) challenging an order dated 29.06.2016 allowing the complaint.  The complaint has been allowed by the District Forum finding deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and ordering an amount of Rupees ten thousand to be paid as compensation, together with an amount of Rupees five thousand as costs.  The complainant is the 1^st respondent herein and the 2nd opposite party is the 2^nd respondent.

          2.  The 1^st respondent was an employee of the 2^nd respondent.  He retired from service on 31.12.2012 on attaining superannuation.  He is a member of the Employees Pension Scheme of the appellant with P.F. Account No.KR/KTM/0010290/000/0001058.  The 2^nd respondent had remitted contributions due from the 1^st respondent for the period from March 2004 to January 2011.  Altogether, 82 instalments were remitted.  According to the 1^st respondent, the 2^nd respondent had recovered an amount of Rs.50,854/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Four) in excess, from the salary of the 1^st respondent and had remitted the same to the appellant.  He came to know of the excess remittances only much later.  Therefore, the 1^st respondent submitted Form 10-C on 06.09.2012 to the appellant through the 2^nd respondent seeking refund of the excess amounts deducted from his salary and remitted as stated above.  However, the said Form 10-C was returned by the appellant on 17.12.2012 stating that, no Revenue Stamp of the value of Rupee One had been affixed thereon.  The defect was cured and the form was re-submitted.  But on 23.01.2013 the appellant issued a letter to the 2^nd respondent requesting for an attested copy of the challan showing the remittance of Rs.50,854/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Four).  On 10.06.2013 the 2^nd respondent replied to the appellant stating that the 1^st respondent had opted for pension on open scale, from March 2004 and the monthly remittances recovered had been remitted to the appellant till January 2011.  They had also submitted Form 7(PS) and annual returns in time, containing the details of the remittances made.  However, on 25.06.2013 the appellant again wrote to the 2^nd respondent seeking a copy of the challan for Rs.50,854/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Four) and for a copy of Form 3-A.  The 2^nd respondent issued a letter on 04.04.2014 to the appellant requesting for refund of the excess amount paid, with interest.  Instead of processing the request, the appellant returned Form 10-C to the 2^nd respondent.

          3.       On 27.08.2014 the 2^nd respondent submitted Form 10-C with a covering letter stating that the 1^st respondent had opted for pension on open scale and that they had remitted the amounts through eighty two instalments.  The appellant then issued a letter to the 1^st respondent requesting to submit the details of the amounts remitted towards the Pension Scheme from 2004 onwards.  The 1^st respondent then preferred the complaint before the District Forum.  According to him, the amounts were recovered from his salary by the 2^nd respondent, who had remitted the same to the appellant.  The act of the appellant and the 2^nd respondent in making the 1^st respondent run from pillar to post for refund of the excess contribution recovered from his salary amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

          4.       The complaint was contested by both the opposite parties by filing separate versions.  According to the version of the appellant, the 1^st respondent was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme.  The normal rate of contribution to be made by an employer is 12% of the wages paid to the employee.  Out of the said contribution, 8.33% will be remitted to the Employees Pension Fund Account and the balance amount will be remitted to the Provident Fund account.  According to them, the maximum pensionable salary was limited to Rs.6,500/-(Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred only) per month.  Though the employer and the employee had an option to pay contribution on the basis of actual salary drawn in excess of Rs.6,500/-(Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred), the 1^st respondent had remitted contribution only on the basis of the limited salary.  It was only from March 2004 onwards that the contributions were remitted on the full salary to the Pension Fund.  Since the 1^st respondent’s salary had crossed the ceiling limit much before March 2004, contributions on the basis of the higher salary were not permissible to be remitted, under the Pension Scheme.  Therefore the monthly pension sanctioned to him was on the basis of his wages calculated at Rs.6,500/-(Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred).  It was therefore that the excess amount was sought to be refunded by the1^st respondent.  However, the wage details of the 1^st respondent were not available with the appellant.  Since the wage details were not required to be preserved the appellant’s office did not have any records of the wages drawn by the 1^st respondent.  It was in the absence of such details that the refund had not been made.  According to them there was no deficiency in service on their part.  Therefore they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          5.       According to the 2^nd respondent, the complainant was an employee of theirs from 28.09.1981 onwards.  He retired from service on 31.12.2012.  They had remitted contributions towards the Pension Scheme from March 2004 till January 2011 in eighty two monthly instalments through challan.  After retirement of the 1^st respondent, it was noticed that an excess payment of Rs.50,854/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Four) had been made in his name, towards the Pension Scheme.  Therefore an application in the prescribed form for refund of the excess payment made was submitted to the appellant.  The appellant wanted the details of the remittances and proof to be supplied.  However, since the remittances were made as per challans over a period of eighty two months, documentary proof of such payments were not available.  All copies of the challans for payments made were submitted to the appellant along with the monthly and annual returns.  Therefore, another application under the prescribed form was also submitted to the appellant.  According to them, there was no deficiency in service on their part.  

6.       The District Forum considered the complaint, on the above pleadings.  The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavits of both parties and Exhibits A1 to A9 documents on the side of the 1^st respondent/complainant and Exhibits B1 to B3 documents on the side of the appellant, 1^st opposite party.  On an appreciation of the above pleadings and evidence the District Forum found that the appellant was guilty of deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complaint has been allowed.

7.       According to the counsel for the appellant, the order of the District Forum is wrong and is liable to be set aside.  It is contended that, the District Forum has failed to consider the contentions in the version filed by the appellant in the proper perspective.   The form 10-C complete in all respects was received only on 27.05.2015 and the amount of Rs.1,01,326/-(Rupees One Lakh One Thousand and Twenty Six) was refunded to the 1^st respondent on 02.06.2015.  The Form 10-C submitted earlier was not filed through the employer, without the attestation of the employer.  Therefore, they have sought for setting aside the order under appeal.

8.       Heard.  We have considered the contentions advanced before us.  We have also perused the Lower Court Records called for by us from the District Forum.

9.       It is not in dispute that the 1^st respondent was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme and that excess amounts had been remitted by him.  He had retired from service on 31.12.2012.  An application in Form 10-C for refund of the excess amount paid with interest had been submitted by him on 06.09.2012.   If the same was defective in any manner, the appellant ought to have informed the 1^st respondent of the defects, within a reasonable time.  However, their initial response was that no Revenue Stamp was affixed thereon.  It was only on 23.12.2013 that they had addressed the 2^nd respondent seeking details of the remittances made.  The correspondence continued for about four years and the amount was refunded to the 1^st respondent only on 02.06.2015.  There is no justification for such inordinate delay.  The appellant has sufficient powers to issue directions to compel the employer to furnish all the necessary details and to take action against an employer if such directions are not complied with.  However, nothing was done.  Consequently, the poor petitioner/1^st respondent was put to a lot of hardships and trouble, which could have been avoided had the appellant acted with reasonable promptitude.  For the above reasons we do not find any error in the order of the District Forum finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.  The said order is confirmed.

In the light of the above, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

SL