Karnataka

StateCommission

A/846/2017

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shabbirahammad - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

22 May 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :10.04.2017

Date of Disposal :22.05.2023

 

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

 

DATED:22.05.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

 

APPEAL No.846/2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Sub Regional Office,

New Block No.10,

Behind Income Tax Office,

Navanagar,

Hubli -580 025.
(By Mrs Nandita Haladipur, Advocate)                           Appellant

 

    -Versus-

Mr.Shabbirahamad

S/o Mr.Rajesaheb Hudali

Age 62 years

R/o Chikodi Road

Railway Station

Belgavi District                                                             Respondent

 

    :ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

01.     This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 24.01.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.159/2016 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (for short, the District Forum).

 

02.     Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant.  Since inspite of service of Notice on the Respondent, none appeared, hence, arguments of Respondent taken as heard.

03.     On perusal of the record, it is observed that the District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP to re-calculate the entitled Monthly Pension payable to the Complainant by giving weightage of two years and also extend minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service, with effect from the date of retirement of the Complainant along with arrears of pension with interest @ 12% p.a.   Further, OP was directed to give Annual Relief as per Para 32 of the scheme 1995 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

04.     Being aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal contended that he had revised the pension by granting weightage of two years and arrears also paid, but, the District Forum without taking into this aspect, directed the Appellant to grant two years weightage, to revise the pension of the Complainant, to pay arrears, interest, cost and compensation is erroneous which deserves to be set aside by allowing the Appeal.

05.     It is not in dispute that the Complainant/Respondent during his service had joined the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and subsequently, continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995.  Complainant retired from the service on 24.10.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation by rendering 29 years of service hence, he is eligible for weightage of two years in as much as he had complied with both the condition as laid down in Para 10 (2) of EPS, as it stood after the amendment to 24.07.2009 and entitled for monthly pension as it stood after 15.06.2007 of Para 12 of EPS 1995 as he was retired after the amendment of 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995.

06.     With regard to benefit under Para 32 of the Scheme i.e., Annual Relief, the Central Government is the only competent authority, which can grant such reliefs and not the OP, as such the same cannot be granted by the OP.

07.     During the course of arguments, the Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that, he had granted two years of weightage, revised the Monthly Pension and paid the arrears. 

08.     Further on observation of the records it reveals that the Appellant had granted two years of weightage, revised the pension as per the entitlement of the Complainant.  It is also relevant to make mention of the fact that the Complainant had retired during the year 2003 and after filing of the Complaint and disposal of the same, the Appellant has belatedly credited arrears of Pension to the account of the Complainant during the year 2016.  In this Appeal, the contention taken by the Appellant that he had granted weightage, revised pension and paid arrears to the complainant in time is un-acceptable.  The act of the Appellant in not fixing the entitled Monthly Pension of the Complainant properly definitely it amounts to deficiency in service.  Under the circumstances, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Impugned Order passed by the District Forum is just and proper.  However, we are of the considered opinion that awarding of interest @ 12% p.a on payment of arrears is on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeal is allowed in part and consequently, the Impugned Order dated 24.01.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.159/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded is concerned.  The cost and mental agony of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as awarded by the District Forum remain un-disturbed. 

09.     The Appellant is directed to comply with this Order within 60 days from the date of this Order, if not already complied with.

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

                                                                   President

*s