1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 26/10/2005 passed by the District Forum, Bhandara, partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing CC No. 2/2005 and directing the Opposite Party No.2/ appellant herein to pay monthly pension to the complainant/respondent No.1 herein  in accordance with the 10-D form submitted by the complainant. Further imposing compensation of Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- more towards cost of proceedings on the Opposite parties.
2. The appellant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to be referred as OP No.2 and respondent No.1 Smt.Raiwanti Beva Fattu Jagnit to be referred as complainant and respondent No.2 M/s Khalil Ahmed Brothers to be referred as Opposite Party No.1 for the sake of brevity.
3. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that complainant was working as permanent and regular employee as Bidi Labourer in the firm of OP No.1 since 1/6/1977 and she resigned from the said employment on 1/3/1997. During the period of her employment, regular deductions were made from her monthly salary as per EPF scheme 1971 and she was also allotted a membership number bearing No.MH/17367/309. Her date of birth is 7/9/1938 and on her attaining the age of 65 years, she was entitled to monthly pension in accordance with the aforesaid scheme. She filed form 10-D accompanied by necessary documents on 10/11/2004 with the OP No.1 who forwarded the same to OP No.2. The OP No.2 failed to give any benefits as per the EPF scheme. Therefore, she filed a Consumer Complaint claiming monthly pension from 1/3/1997 with accrued benefits thereon and also interest of 18% p.a. on the accrued amount till the date of realization.
4. The OP No.1 remained absent though served, therefore, it was proceeded exparte.
5. The OP No.2 resisted the complaint by filing its written version and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainant and though admitted the date of birth of the complainant as 7/9/1938, specifically submitted that as per their record, she had attained the age of 51 years on 1/6/1977. Therefore, she completed the age of 58 years on 1/6/1984 and she had already received the benefit under the EPF scheme on 30/6/1997 as withdrawal benefit. The complainant has filed the complaint in 2004 i.e. after 20 years of accrual of cause of action which accrued in 1984 when she retired from service.  Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed as the complainant is not entitled to any further benefit under the scheme.
6. The District Forum below, after hearing both the sides, partly allowed the complaint with the directions as aforesaid.  The Forum has observed that in view of the admitted fact in respect of the birth date of the complainant being 7/9/1938 and she having completed the age of 65 years, she is entitled to the pensionary benefits as per the EPF scheme the OP had failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the complainant has already received the benefit under the EPF scheme and the cause of action for filing of the consumer complaint would commence from the date of submitting the 10 D form i.e. 25/9/2004 and therefore, the consumer complaint filed in December,2004 is well within limitation.
7. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the original OP No.2 has preferred this appeal.
8. We heard the counsel for the appellant and Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is already proceeded exparte. We also perused the copies of the complaint, written version, affidavit and written notes of arguments filed by both the parties.
9. The learned advocate of appellant, in his written notes of arguments admitted that the date of birth of the complainant is 7/9/1938. Moreover, her said date of birth is to be accepted since there is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, she would complete age of 65 years in the year 2003. The contention of the Opposite Party that her age was 51 years in the year 1977 as per their record cannot be accepted in view of the undisputed date of birth of the complainant. The Opposite Party should not have raised such a plea without verifying the record of her date of birth. The Opposite Party submitting that the complainant retired in 1984 on her allegedly attaining 58 years of age, and then, submitting that the complainant received the withdrawal benefit of Rs.480/- on 30/06/1997, cannot be accepted being without any logical support.
10. The EPF schemes are floated by the Government to safeguard the interest of the employee after retirement, after accepting the proportionate contribution from the employee. Therefore, it is the boundant duty of the authority to take all necessary steps to verify the record and extend the benefit of such scheme to the beneficiary effectively. In the present case, in view of the admitted date of birth of the complainant which is 7/9/1938, she completed the age of 65 years in 2003 and she submitted the 10-D form in November,2004. Therefore, she is rightly entitled to the monthly pension as per the scheme. For the foregoing reasons, we find no glaring infirmity, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order and warrants no interference. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 26/10/2005 passed by the District Forum, Bhandara in CC No. 2/2005 is confirmed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copy of the order be supplied to all the parties free of costs.
4. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 26/10/2005 passed by the District Forum, Bhandara, partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing CC No. 2/2005 and directing the Opposite Party No.2/ appellant herein to pay monthly pension to the complainant/respondent No.1 herein  in accordance with the 10-D form submitted by the complainant. Further imposing compensation of Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- more towards cost of proceedings on the Opposite parties.
5. The appellant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to be referred as OP No.2 and respondent No.1 Smt.Raiwanti Beva Fattu Jagnit to be referred as complainant and respondent No.2 M/s Khalil Ahmed Brothers to be referred as Opposite Party No.1 for the sake of brevity.
6. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that complainant was working as permanent and regular employee as Bidi Labourer in the firm of OP No.1 since 1/6/1977 and she resigned from the said employment on 1/3/1997. During the period of her employment, regular deductions were made from her monthly salary as per EPF scheme 1971 and she was also allotted a membership number bearing No.MH/17367/309. Her date of birth is 7/9/1938 and on her attaining the age of 65 years, she was entitled to monthly pension in accordance with the aforesaid scheme. She filed form 10-D accompanied by necessary documents on 10/11/2004 with the OP No.1 who forwarded the same to OP No.2. The OP No.2 failed to give any benefits as per the EPF scheme. Therefore, she filed a Consumer Complaint claiming monthly pension from 1/3/1997 with accrued benefits thereon and also interest of 18% p.a. on the accrued amount till the date of realization.
7. The OP No.1 remained absent though served, therefore, it was proceeded exparte.
8. The OP No.2 resisted the complaint by filing its written version and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainant and though admitted the date of birth of the complainant as 7/9/1938, specifically submitted that as per their record, she had attained the age of 51 years on 1/6/1977. Therefore, she completed the age of 58 years on 1/6/1984 and she had already received the benefit under the EPF scheme on 30/6/1997 as withdrawal benefit. The complainant has filed the complaint in 2004 i.e. after 20 years of accrual of cause of action which accrued in 1984 when she retired from service.  Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed as the complainant is not entitled to any further benefit under the scheme.
9. The District Forum below, after hearing both the sides, partly allowed the complaint with the directions as aforesaid.  The Forum has observed that in view of the admitted fact in respect of the birth date of the complainant being 7/9/1938 and she having completed the age of 65 years, she is entitled to the pensionary benefits as per the EPF scheme the OP had failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the complainant has already received the benefit under the EPF scheme and the cause of action for filing of the consumer complaint would commence from the date of submitting the 10 D form i.e. 25/9/2004 and therefore, the consumer complaint filed in December,2004 is well within limitation.
10. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the original OP No.2 has preferred this appeal.
11. We heard the counsel for the appellant and Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is already proceeded exparte. We also perused the copies of the complaint, written version, affidavit and written notes of arguments filed by both the parties.
12. The learned advocate of appellant, in his written notes of arguments admitted that the date of birth of the complainant is 7/9/1938. Moreover, her said date of birth is to be accepted since there is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, she would complete age of 65 years in the year 2003. The contention of the Opposite Party that her age was 51 years in the year 1977 as per their record cannot be accepted in view of the undisputed date of birth of the complainant. The Opposite Party should not have raised such a plea without verifying the record of her date of birth. The Opposite Party submitting that the complainant retired in 1984 on her allegedly attaining 58 years of age, and then, submitting that the complainant received the withdrawal benefit of Rs.480/- on 30/06/1997, cannot be accepted being without any logical support.
13. The EPF schemes are floated by the Government to safeguard the interest of the employee after retirement, after accepting the proportionate contribution from the employee. Therefore, it is the boundant duty of the authority to take all necessary steps to verify the record and extend the benefit of such scheme to the beneficiary effectively. In the present case, in view of the admitted date of birth of the complainant which is 7/9/1938, she completed the age of 65 years in 2003 and she submitted the 10-D form in November,2004. Therefore, she is rightly entitled to the monthly pension as per the scheme. For the foregoing reasons, we find no glaring infirmity, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order and warrants no interference. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order.

14. ORDER

15. Appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 26/10/2005 passed by the District Forum, Bhandara in CC No. 2/2005 is confirmed.
16. No order as to costs.
17. Copy of the order be supplied to all the parties free of costs.