Sri. B.Narayanappa, President

1. The complainant Sri B.S. Venkataramu has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party for re-fixation of pension amount at Rs.1,143/- per month from 02.05.2006 in accordance with Para 12(3),(4) R/W Para 10(2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and to pay the difference pension amount of Rs.213/- per month with interest at 12% p.a. for the delay and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and also to pay damages of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony with such other reliefs.   
2. The brief fact of the case:

      The complainant submits that he was an employee of J.K.Tyres and Industries, Mysuru since 1980. He was the member of the provident Fund Scheme 1952 and his PF account Number was KN/9508/000/0000452 allotted by OP. The complainant also the member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme since 1982 and has contributed as per Act. Subsequently the complainant has become the member of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 and contributed for the same and also the contribution was transferred from the earlier scheme. Thus, the complainant has contributed to the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 from 1982 to till the date of his retirement as on 31.07.2002.  The OP is the authority to receive the contributions and also to give relief to the pensioners under the scheme thereby the OP has become a service provider to the complainant. Further the complainant retired from the service on 31.07.2002 and opted for pension since 02.05.2006.  

3. The OP in the pension payment order number KN/MYS/26769 mentioned that the complainant has put in a past service of 13 years prior to 15.11.1995 and actual service of 6 years 08 months and 16 days, after 16.11.1995 as defined under the Para 2(1) (ii) of the scheme. Thus the total eligible service rendered by him works out to 19 years and 10 months as determined under Para 9(b) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. Considering the above the OP has sanctioned a pension of Rs.930/- per month from 02.05.2006 without giving the weightage of 2 years. Aggrieved with the same the complainant got issued a legal notice to OP requesting to re-fix the pension amount from 02.05.2006 with interest alleging deficiency in service by the OP. Hence the complaint.
4. The OP represented through their counsel has filed their written version by denying the allegations and submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost as not maintainable. It is admitted that the complainant was the pensioner under Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and the pension was fixed as per the provisions of the scheme and it is in order. The allegations are baseless and the complainant is not entitled for re-fixing the pension as claimed for.  The complainant opted for reduced pension with effect from 02.05.2006 and receiving a pension of Rs.930/- per month from May 2006. Further the complainant has left the service on 31.07.2002. Thereby the benefit of 2 years weightage is not given under the scheme. Further the complainant was retired on 31.07.2002 i.e. prior to 24.07.2009. Thereby as per the amendment vide GSR546E dated:23.07.2009, under the provision 9(b) prior to 21.08.2009, rounding of the pensionable service is not stated. However the complainant has rounded of the pensionable service to 7 years for calculation of pension amount which is denied as not correct. Further the complainant has opted for an early pension (reduced pension) at the age of 50 years. As such the member pension will be reduced at the rate of 3% p.a. for 8 years which amounts to 257 (1187x21.63%). Hence the calculation arrived at by the complainant is not correct.  Thereby the allegation of deficiency in service is denied as false. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5. Both parties have filed their affidavit evidence along with several documents in support of their contention. Written arguments are filed and learned counsel of both side have addressed arguments. Perusing the material evidence and the documents the matter is set down for orders.
6. The following points arose for our consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service

                       by the OP?

3. What order

7.  Our findings on the aforesaid point is as follows:

                    Point no.1: In the Negative

                   Point No.2: Does not call for any discussion.

                   Point no.3: As per final order for the following

REASONS

8. Point No.1:- Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the OP is wrongly fixed the pension without considering the provisions as per the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. Admittedly the complainant has retired from the services in the year 2002 and opted for pension from the year 2006. The OP has sanctioned a pension from 02.05.2006 infavour of the complainant. However the complainant did not raised any kind of objection regarding the amount of pension received by him till filing of this complaint in the year 2018. However the complaint has been filed after the laps of about 12 years from the date of sanction of pension amount and for refixing of the pension along with the difference amount and interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 02.05.2006 alleging deficiency in service by the OP and sought for reliefs. Inview of the above the complainant ought to have filed the complaint before this commission within 2 years from the date of the cause of action. However the complainant has filed this complaint in the year 2018. Which is delayed by 12 years. As per section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 a complaint has to be filed within 2 years from the date of arose of the cause of action. Hence this commission is of the opinion that the complaint is filed belatedly i.e., after the lapse of limitation period. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in “Affirmative’’.
9.  Point No.2:- In view of the above Observation, on point No.1 this point does not call for any discussion.
10.  Point No.3:- Considering the discussions on point No.1, the complaint filed by Sri B.S.Venkataramu is to be dismissed as not maintainable.  Hence the following:

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. Furnish the copy of this order to the parties, at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected

by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 25^th August, 2021)