Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1437/2019

The Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Siddappa - Opp.Party(s)

B.V.Vidhyulatha

29 May 2023

ORDER

                                                                  Date of Filing :14.10.2019

Date of Disposal :29.05.2023

 

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

 

DATED:29.05.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                   APPEAL No.1437/2019                                  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension),

Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan,

New Block No.10,

Behind Income Tax office,

Navanagar,

Hubli–580025.
(By Mrs B V Vidhyulatha, Advocate)                                 Appellant

 

     -Versus-

Mr Siddappa
S/o Mr Mahadevappa Kamannavar,

Aged about 76 years,

R/at Yaragatti Village,

Saundatti Tq.,

Belagavi 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 29.08.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No.86/2018 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (for short, the District Forum).

 

02.     The Commission heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant.  Since inspite of service of notice on Respondent none appeared, hence, arguments of Respondent taken as heard

03.     The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP to revise the monthly pension of the Complainant taking into consideration the date of his retirement, as per Para 12 (5) (a) & (b) R/w Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 and weightage of two years shall be given and pay the arrears which has become due and keep paying the pension at the revised rate, according to the rules as on the date of his retirement and directing the OP to pay cost and compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant.

04.     Being aggrieved by this order, OP is in Appeal interalia contending amongst other grounds that the District Forum erred in holding that, since the Complaint retired prior to 15.06.2007, his past services are to be fixed as per Para 12 (5) (a) & (b) and Read with Para 10(2), which was prevailing as on the date of retirement and also that he is entitled to benefit of weightage of 2 years, since he had rendered 26 years if pensionable service as on the date of retirement. The District Forum erred in not considering that as per Para 35 and 41 of the EPS 1995, the Complainant has an alternative remedy of approaching the Central Government, since the present complaint is in respect of interpretation of a provision of the scheme and Central Government would be the competent Authority to decide the dispute.  Thus, seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.

05.     Perused the impugned order and grounds of Appeal.   It is not in dispute that the Complainant/Respondent herein during his service had joined the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971.   It is also not in dispute that the Complainant had retired from his service on 30.04.1999 after rendering 26 years of service hence, he becomes eligible for weightage of two years, as he had retired before the amendment to 24.07.2009 of Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995.

06.     Not withstanding anything with regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension for the Complainant, in as much he had retired earlier to 15.06.2007, his Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007. 

07.     Further, it is observed in the impugned order that the District Forum made an observation in Para 20 of the Impugned Order that taking into consideration of the several aspects in earlier orders, it is reasonable to award interest at the rate of 10% per annum in this case also. Thus the act of the Appellant in not fixing the pension of the Complainant properly definitely amounts to deficiency in service. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that awarding of interest @ 10% 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 29.08.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No.86/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned.  The cost and compensation of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the District Forum to the Complainant remain un-disturbed. 

08.     The delay of 373 days in preferring the Appeal is hereby condoned by considering the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of IA filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

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