Complaint filed on: 13-03-2019

                                                      Disposed on: 28-07-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.60/2019 

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF JULY, 2020

PRESENT

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -                   

M.M.Hussain,

Aged about 80 years,

(Driver, KSRTC)

Door No.5/883, 15^th Cross,

BB Road, PH Colony, Tumakuru

(By Sri.T.Ramaiah, Advocate) 

V/s

Opposite parties:-        

1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional office, Peenya, Bengaluru-58

2. The Divisional Controller, (DC), KSRTC, Tumkur

(OP No.1-by Sri.M.Predeep, Advocate)

(OP No.2-Exparte)                  

ORDER

SMT.NIVEDITHA RAVISH, LADY MEMBER

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP No.1 and 2 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the 1^st OP to revise the monthly pension by extending the minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service separately and to revise the monthly pension by extending the weightage of two years with effect from the date of retirement of the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a; and to pay arrears which are accumulated along with interest @ 12% p.a.; and to give annual relief from 2001 till this financial year with interest @ 12% p.a., and to continue to pay the monthly pension to complainant as per the scheme in revised scale  and to pass order to OP No.1 to give annual relief from 1997 to 2000 with interest which has declared by the Govt. of India in different years till the retirement of complainant and direct the OP No.1 to stop the commutation deduction after 100 times and to direct to OP No.1 to pay arrears amount more deducted after 100 times or installments with interest @ 12% p.a. and to award Rs.5,000=00 to the complainant as cost of the proceedings and to award Rs.10,000-00 as compensation towards mental agony in the interest of justice and equity.

2. It is the case of complainant that he was working as driver in the 2^nd OP KSRTC, Tumakuru. The complainant was joined the service on 01-06-1971 and retired from the service on 31-1-1997. The 1^st OP had introduced the Pension Scheme namely Family Pension Scheme, 1971 with effect from 1-6-1971. The membership to the Family Scheme was optional. The complainant was opted to join the Family Pension Scheme. The membership to the said scheme was accepted by the 1^st OP and the family pension account number was allotted to the complainant. Thereafter, the 2^nd OP deducted the monthly subscription from the complainant’s monthly salary and the same was remitted to the 1^st OP. In the year 1995, the 1^st OP repealed the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and introduced the new scheme known as Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 with effect from 16-11-1995. The 1^st OP asked the complainant to submit their willingness to transfer the amount accumulated in the old scheme to new scheme and the 1^st OP accepted the willingness and continued the complainant in new scheme.

          3. It is further case of complainant that after retirement, the 2^nd OP has sent all the service records and other details to the 1^st OP. Thereafter, the 1^st OP settled/fixed the monthly pension of the complainant. In the month of March, 2019 it came to the knowledge of the complainant through one of his colleague that there are errors in the calculation of pension fixed and pension now paid to them by the 1^st OP is lesser one that the complainant entitled. Immediately, the complainant has given representation to the 1^st OP for the revision of the monthly pension, but the 1^st OP has not revised the monthly pension of the complainant till this date. The said act of the 1^st OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.

4. It is further case of complainant that as per the provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 the monthly pension is calculated for two different periods separately i.e. past service-scheme namely Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and present service-scheme namely Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 till his retirement. As per the paragraph no.12 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 the monthly pension means aggregate of the past service and present service pension benefits. The 1^st OP has not followed the provisions of the law and made erroneous calculation without applying minimum assured benefits. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present services separately. As per the paragraph no.10 (2) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 it is necessary to give two years of weightage period to the members who superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years or/and who has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more. In the present case, the 1^st OP has failed to follow the provisions of the paragraph No.12 (2) of the scheme and the said benefit has not extended to the present complainant. The complainant has rendered more than 20 years of pensionable service and he is entitled for the benefit of weightage of two years.

          5. It is further case of complainant that as per the paragraph No.32 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 it is necessary to give annual relief by making valuation of Employees Pension Fund from the year 2001, no such valuation is made by the 1^st OP and no annual relief is given to the complainant. The 1^st OP has failed to follow the provisions of the scheme. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the annual relief from 2001 to this date as per the provisions of the scheme. It is further case of the complainant that to direct the 1^st OP to stop the commutation deduction after 100 times and to pay arrears amount which deducted after 100 times or installments with interest @ 12% p.a. The period of limitation starts from the date on which it came to the knowledge of the complainant about the erroneous calculation of pension in the month of October, 2014. Hence, the complaint is in time, since 1^st OP is paying wrongful pension every month. Hence, the complaint. 

          6. The 1^st OP has appeared through its learned counsel and filed memo stating that PPO number of complainant is wrong and it pertains to different person. The 2^nd OP KSRTC, Tumkur despite the service of notice was proceeded exparte.

          7. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. The 1^st OP has filed a memo date 01-7-2019 along with annexure-R1.

          8. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant in addition to written brief submitted by the complainant and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1.      Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1?

2.      Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

3.      What order?

9. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1:          Does not arise for consideration in view of findings on point no.2

Point No.2:          In the affirmative

Point No.3:          As per the final order for the

below

REASONS

10. The complainant has come up with the present complaint contending that there is error in calculation of the pension. In-fact he is entitled for the separate minimum assured pension for the past and present service according to the Para 12 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, he is entitled for the weightage of two years as per Para 10 (2) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and entitled for annual relief under Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995.  But the 1^st OP has not followed the provisions of law and made erroneous calculation. 

11. The OP submitted that the complainant has mentioned the PPO number i.e. PY/PNY/4611 in the complaint. On verification of records it is noticed that PPO No.PY/PNY/4611 does not pertain to the complainant. The PPO No.PY/PNY/4611 as referred to in the complaint pertains to one Smt.Bharathi.R. On perusal of the documents produced by the 1^st OP and complainant, PPO number is mentioned as 4611 in the corrigendum to pension payment order dated 19-1-2020 issued by the Employee’s Provident Fund Organisation, Regional office, Karnataka to the complainant and it is signed and sealed by Assistant PF Commissioner (Pension). Hence, the objections raised by the 1^st OP is overruled.

12. Further with regard to limitation the complainant himself has mentioned in para no.11 of the complaint that he came to know about the erroneous calculation of pension in the month of October, 2014 quoting with citation of the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Bengaluru in Appeal No.415-419/2008 dated 14-7-2008 [Yamanappa Agasar and others v/s Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner]. It is held that the period of limitation starts from the date on which it came to the knowledge of the pensioner about the erroneous calculation. The complainant in para no.11 of the complaint stated that he came to know about the erroneous calculation of pension in the month of October, 2014. This complaint is filed on 13-3-2019 after five years from the date of knowledge of complainant. Section 24(A) of CP Act, 1986 states that “the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint if it has been filed after two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen”.

13. The complainant in para no.5 of the complaint stated that immediately after coming to know the error in calculation of the monthly pension and payment of lesser pension, the complainant has given representation to the OP No.1 for the revision of monthly pension. The said notice is duly received by the OP No.1. In case the complainant had given representation and it has received by OP No.1, the complainant would have produced the copy of it in this case. The complainant has not stated the date of representation given to the OP No.1. This shows that the complainant has not given any representation to the OP No.1. 

14. Section 24(2) of the CP Act, 1986 further enumerates that a complaint can be entertained after the stipulated period if the complainant satisfies the appropriate consumer forum that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. The appropriate forum shall also record reasons for condonation of delay (if any). Hence, if there has been delay in filing the consumer complaint, then the complainant shall satisfactorily explain the Commission the reason for delay caused in filing the complaint. In this case the complainant has not filed any application to show the suitable reason for delay in filing the complaint hence, this complaint is barred by limitation. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

        The complaint is dismissed without cost.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28^th day of July, 2021).

LADY MEMBER                MEMBER                   PRESIDENT