Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant’s husband Bipra Charan Rana was employee under OSRTC being employed in 1994. It is alleged inter-alia that in 1995 the Govt. of India introduced the pension scheme for the employee w.e.f. 16.11.1995. It is alleged that the scheme has got provision for the employee of the scheme to avail pension. It is alleged that the employees were asked by OP to opt for the scheme within 65 days of its commencement and as such the last date for option was 15.5.1996. It is alleged that much prior to this date, the husband of the complainant died on 19.01.1996. After the death, the complainant applied for family pension by depositing Rs.15,688/-. It is strange to find out that the OP has received the said amount but did not pay the family pension inspite of request by the complainant. So, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party i.e. employer of the deceased employee. It is also averred that complainant’s husband having expired after the commencement of the scheme but due to non-submission of the option the complainant was awarded no pension. It is also alleged that OP inadvertently issued the letter to deposit Rs.15,688/- and the complainant has deposited same. After knowing about the mistake, they informed the complainant to take back that amount with interest thereon. But the complainant filed the complaint. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx
“ In the result, we direct the opposite parties to pay the PF benefits of the complainant as per EPF’95 scheme to which she opted and is fully entitled to. The payment shall be with effect from 20.01.06 on the amount deposited for Rs.15,688/- and shall be effected within one month from the date of receipt of this order by the OPs. In view of the circumstances, we do not allow any damage as claimed by the complainant. She is however entitled to a sum of Rs.1000/- towards the cost of the unwarranted litigation. If payment is not made to the complainant as ordered above within the time stipulated, the amount shall attract interest at the rate of 9 % per annum till payment is effected.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by directing to award provident fund benefits to the complainant but without understanding the written version filed by the OP. In fact the complainant’s husband being an employee should have obtained same but not the wife. Learned District Forum should have applied judicial mind to the fact and law involved with it. The EPF Scheme 1995 mandates for filing option but due to want of filing option they are unable to pay PF benefits. Further he submitted that they have already refunded Rs.23,882/- including that amount of Rs.15,688/-. Learned District Forum ought to have considered this fact and law while passing the impugned order. However, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant’s husband died in the meantime and complainant being the legal heir has been substituted. It is not in dispute that the complainant was asked to submit the option and he has paid Rs.15,688/-. We have gone through the EPF scheme and found that such scheme is available to person who are contributing to the pension scheme. Here, the complainant’s husband was working in OSRTC but admittedly no contribution has been paid by him. OPs admit that inadvertently they have asked to deposit Rs.15,688/- vide letter dtd.02.06.1999. The additional affidavit filed by the appellant shows that realizing their mistake, they have already refunded Rs.15,688/- with interest altogether Rs.23,882/- which has been credited to the account of late Bipra Charan Rana. Now the question arises if he is not a pension holder, there is no occasion for OP to direct wife of the complainant to submit the money with option. So, undoubtedly there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, of course they have admitted. When the husband of the complainant was not contributing, he is not entitled to the pensionary benefit.
9. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the money deposited should be refunded with interest thereon and same has already admitted by the OP.Since, the money has been already offerred with interest which is of course of late, the OP is therefore liable to pay compensation but the liability can be compensated by awarding interest on the principal. We have got information from learned counsel for the appellant that Rs.23,882/- has been credited to the account of complainant. Therefore, while confirming the impugned order, we modified the impugned order and hereby direct the OP to pay cost of Rs.1000/- through Demand Draft to the legal heirs in their home address if complainant is not alive within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which it will carry 12 % interest from date of impugned order till date of payment. Rest of the impugned order are set-aside.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
