<br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint seeking return of capital and Insurance amount of Rs.50,000/-<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be breiefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is the husband of diseased Panjakashy who was a member of Provident Fund with A/c. No.KR/2560/292. The complainant is the nominee. Though the diseased filed an application for Family Pension the same was rejected by the opp.party. Thereupon the complainant filed O.P.Q.345/2000 in which pensionary benefits were sanctioned by this Forum. The diseased was a member of Provident Fund Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme. She is entitled to return of capital and insurance amount of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant who is the nominee of the diseased filed application for the same before the opp.party on 13.1.2004 which was rejected. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The 1st opp.party filed version contending as follows. The order of this Forum in O.P.No.344/2000 has been complied with. The complainant’s wife Smt. Pankajakshy left service on 30.11.1994 and she died on 30.7.1996. The complainant filed OP.No.344/2002 and this Forum delivered the judgment on 1.10.2002. The application claiming the Deposit Linked Insurance was rejected in 1997 as per letter dated 19.11.1997. Therefore this complaint is barred by limitation under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Provident Fund Account and Employees Family Pension Fund account of the diseased were settled on 26.4.1995 and the amount was sent to her bank Account. The Assurance Benefit is entitled to only in the event of death of the employee while being a member of the Fund. In this case the death of the member occurred after cessation of employment and membership and therefore she is not eligible for Assurance benefit. The demand of the complainant is unsustainable. The return of Capital is an entirely different benefit assured by the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 which is described in para 13 of the EPS 1995. The option for the same shall be exercised by the member at the time of submission of the application for pension. If no option is exercised the member shall be deemed not to have exercised any option under the provisions of para 12. The widower or anybody other than the member is not entitled to opt for return of capital. Though the complainant was directed to produce the original application filed by the member to verify as to whether she had exercised option the complainant did not produce the same. The opp.party has released all the benefits entitled under the EPF and MP Act, 1952 and also complied with the order of this Forum in O.P.No.344/2000. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> The 2nd opp.party is exparte.<br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get return of capital and Insurance amount as claimed?<br /> 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties?<br /> 3. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P4 are marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D3 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points: 1 to 3<br /> <br /> The contention of the opp.party is that the complainant is not entitled to get the assurance benefit under the Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme 1976 in respect of deceased Pankajakshy on two grounds. 1st is that it is admissible only if the member dies while being a member of the Fund. The 2nd is that the present claim is barred by limitation. Ext. D1 shows that the complainant has applied for the above benefit earlier which was rejected by opp.party on 19.11.1997 and the present complaint is filed only on 26.6.2006 Sec. 24A of the Consumer Protection Act prescribes a period limitation of 2years. Therefore the present complaint for the above claim is barred by limitation.<br /> <br /> Para 2 [b] of Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme 1976 defines Assurance benefit. It reads “Assurance benefit means a payment linked to the average balance in the Provident Fund Account of an employee payable to a person belonging to his family or otherwise entitled to it in the event of death of the employee while being a member of the Fund” . Going by the definition it is mandatory that for the eligibility of the claim the death of the employee must be while being a member of the 1976 scheme. Here the employee retired on 30.11.1994. Her Employees Family Pension Fund account was settled on 24.6.1995 . She died on 30.7.1996. So it is obvious that the death of the employee was after cessation of her membership in the Fund. Therefore, the complainant who is her nominee is not entitled to get the assurance benefit in respect of deceased Pankajakshy.<br /> <br /> Return of capital is dealt with in para 13 of the EPS 1995. Para 13 [2] stipulates that the option for return of capital shall be exercised by the member at the time of submission of pension application such an option is not forthcoming in this case. The opp.party submitted that they conducted an adalath in which an application of the complainant for return of capital was considered and though he was asked to produce the original pension application filed by deceased Pankajakshy to verify as to whether she had exercised such an option but he did not produce the same. The complainant did not produce the same before this Forum also. It is to be pointed out that the original pension application submitted by Pankajakshy was rejected and returned to her which resulted in the filing of this complaint. The only possible inference that can be drawn in such circumstances is that deceased Pankajakshy did not opt for return of capital while filing pension application. The complainant who is the nominee of Pankajakshy in our view, cannot exercise option for return of capital and his application was rightly rejected by the 1st opp.party. There is no deficiency in service on the side of the opp.parties. Points found accordingly. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 30th day of August, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complaint<br /> PW.1. – Pranavanandan<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Order of the CDRF., KOllam<br /> P2. – Adalath complaint<br /> P3. - Complaint<br /> P4. –Letter sent by 1st opp.party to the complaint dated3..2..2004<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – K.P. Balagopalan Nair<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. – Rejection letter<br /> D2. – Death certificate of complainant’s wife<br /> D3. – Form No.10D<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />