Karnataka

StateCommission

A/2605/2016

The Regional Provident FundCommissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

T Eswarappa S/o T Thimappa - Opp.Party(s)

S J

09 Aug 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :29.09.2016

Date of Disposal :09.08.2023

 

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

 

DATED:09.08.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL No.2605/2016

 

 

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Regional Office

Peenya

Bengaluru-560 022                                                       Appellant

(By Mrs Sandhya Jamadagni, Advocate)

 

-Versus-

 

Mr T Eswarappa

S/o Mr T Thimappa

Aged about 64 years

No.59, 2^nd Cross (ASHIRWAD)

Thindlu Main Road

Vidyaranyapura

Bengaluru-560 097                                                        Respondent

         

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by OP aggrieved by the Order dated 27.04.2016 passed in Complaint No.2764/2013 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for Appellant.   Perusal of the records reveals that the Notice on Respondent returned with postal shara ‘un-served’ by the Postal authorities and no required further step has been taken in this regard by the Appellant. Taking into consideration, the vintage of the case and the age of the Respondent, as a special case, the service of Notice has been dispensed with, to avoid further delay and inconvenience to this Senior Citizen Complainant

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part with a direction to OP to re-fix the Monthly Pension of the Complainant as per Rule 10(2) read with Rule 12(3) of Employees Provident Scheme of 1995 from the Date of his Retirement, by giving weightage of two years and to pay the arrears of pension amount and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of the Order.

 

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal, seeking to set aside the Impugned Order passed by the District Forum.

5.       Perused the impugned order and the Grounds of Appeal.   The allegation of the Complainant is that inspite of giving representation to the OP for grant of weightage of two years and re-fixation of the entitled monthly Pension and since OP has not revised his pension, he has lodged the present Complaint.   In his Version, OP has taken a contention that Compliant is not at all maintainable either in Law or on facts and the Complainant is not eligible to get weightage of two years as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995.

6.       It is observed that the Complainant is a Member of Employees Provident Fund Organisation; contributed his contribution to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971; continued to contribute subsequently to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995 also and retired from the services of his Employer on 23.05.2006, on attaining the age of superannuation and his entitled Monthly Pension was fixed at Rs.1,483/- per month by the OP.   With regard to giving of weightage of two years, in the Memorandum of Appeal at Paragraph No.6 therein it is specifically contended by the Appellant that as per the clarification received from their Head Office, the Appellant granted weightage of two years to the persons who are receiving pension on attaining the age superannuation/58 years and retired before 24.07.2009. 

7.       Further weightage of two years has been granted by the Appellant/OP, as the Complainant has fulfilled the criteria as mandated prior to amendment 24.07.2009, revised the pension and paid the arrears of pension amount of Rs.13,947/- for the period from 25.04.2006 to 31.03.2014.  Be that as it may, the OP/Appellant has revised the monthly pension of the complainant belatedly and that too only after the Complainant lodged the present Complaint. In the circumstances, the Impugned Order is just and proper and same does not call for any interference from this Commission.   Accordingly, the Appeal stands Dismissed, with no order as to costs

8.       The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

 

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

 

                                                                  

President

*s