BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 414/2010 Filed on 24.12.2010

ORDER DATED: 31.03.2015

Complainant:

 

Ponnamma, Malayamkunnil, Charuvila Puthen Veedu, Pallickal, Thiruvananthapuram.

 

                                 (By Adv. Kallada P. Kunjumon)

Opposite party:

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

 

                     (By Adv. Pattom K. Ramachandran Nair)

                            

This C.C having been heard on 19.02.2015, the Forum on 31.03.2015 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

The case of the complainant is that she was an employee of the Raj Kumar Impex Private Ltd. since 1971 to 31.12.2007 till she attained age of 60 years.  She had contributed to the different schemes of the Employee Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and had rendered a total service of 35 years in toto.  The opposite party had given an account number to her as KR/1199/597 without any dispute and the opposite party is bound to extend all kinds of benefits covered by the schemes to the complainant properly and fairly.  In 1995 Employees Pensions Scheme was introduced and all the contributories to the scheme are entitled to the benefits covered under the scheme from 01.04.1993, who attained the age of 58 and has continuous service at least for 10 years with contributions.  This complainant entered in service in the year 1971 and has completed 35 continuous service till 31.12.2005.  The complainant attained the age of 58 on 31.12.2005 and had applied for the pension, but the opposite party extended only lesser benefit.  The complainant continuously complained before the opposite party to extend the pension properly and finally on 31.01.2009 sent a request for the proper benefits, but the opposite party so far sent no reply.  The complainant was a contributory to Family Pension Scheme from 1971 and had got unhindered service of 25 years in the Family Pension Scheme 1971 and 10 years service in Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and thus rendered 35 years of continuous contributory service and opposite party is liable to pay benefits counting the total service of 35 years.  The complainant is also eligible for weightage of 2 years as per Employees Pension Scheme 1995.   The complainant is eligible to get at least minimum benefit of Rs. 1,129/- (635 + 494) per month towards pension.  The opposite party did not pay the contributions received from the complainant after 31.12.2005 and the opposite party is liable to return the contributions with interest.  Hence complainant filed this complaint directing the opposite party to extend the pension @ Rs. 1129/- monthly from 2006 January together with commutation of pension of Rs. 37,600/- and Return of Capital Rs. 75,300/- with 18% interest per annum for the monthly pension and commutation of pension from January 2006 till realization with 12% interest and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs. 

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  Opposite party admitted that the complainant was an employee of M/s Raj Kumar Impex Pvt. Ltd. and her EPF A/c No. KR/1199/597.  She joined the EPF & FPFS on 01.04.1972 and her date of birth as per statutory declaration duly attested by employer is 25.08.1947.  The complainant has completed 58 years of age on 24.08.2005 and the averment that she attained 58 years only on 31.12.2005 is incorrect.  The complainant was contributing to the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 from 01.04.1972 and the EPS 71 was replaced by the present EPS 1995.  There was a proviso in erstwhile EPS 71 that the reckonable service will cease wherever there occurred a non-contributory period of one year in between two spells.  It was found that there was a break of 2 years i.e; for the full year of 83-84 & 84-85.  This caused cessation of membership of the complainant.  Therefore the service up to 1983 was eliminated and service from 1985 reckoned as per rules and Pension Payment Order issued.  The complainant had applied for pension in August 2005 and date of birth has been furnished as 1947.  The date of birth once submitted cannot be altered on a subsequent date and more so after leaving service.  As such the monthly pension payable is Rs. 449/- (Rs. 673/- - Rs. 224/- = Rs. 449/-) and the revised PPO entitlements were released to the bank account of the pensioner.  The Raj Kumar Impex is an establishment working throughout the year and hence cannot claim as seasonal establishment.  The opposite party has processed the pension application strictly adhering the provisions of EPS 1995 and there is no deficiency in rendering the service as per the statute.  The averments in the complaint is denied and opposite party prays that the complaint may be dismissed with costs to the opposite party.

 

Complainant filed two documents and submitted that complainant has no oral evidence.  Opposite party filed affidavit and three documents marked.  Opposite party was also cross examined for the complainant. 

Issues:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is eligible for the reliefs as prayed for?

    

Issues (i) & (ii):- The complainant in this complaint sought relief against the opposite party for directing the opposite party to extend the pension @ Rs. 1,129/- monthly from 2006 January together with commutation of pension of Rs. 37,600/- and return of capital of Rs. 75,300/- with 18% per annum for the monthly pension and commutation of pension from January 2006 till realization with 12% interest and costs and compensation.  Complainant has no oral evidence and marked Exts. P1 and P2 subject to proof.  According to the complainant she entered service from 1971 and retired on 31.12.2007, when she attained the age of 60 years, and rendered unhindered service for 35 years from 1971 to 31.12.2005.  On completion of the age of 58 years with 37 years of total pensionable service including weightage of two years service, she applied for pension to the opposite party.  But the opposite party extended very lesser pension ignoring the beneficial provision under EPS 1995.  Complainant’s contention is that she is entitled to get minimum pension and other benefits @ Rs. 1,129/- per month from January 2006 and other benefits.  The opposite party admits that the complainant was an employee of M/s Raj Kumar Impex Pvt. Ltd., and it is an establishment working throughout the year and hence cannot claim as seasonable establishment.  But the complainant did not produce any document to show that it is a seasonal establishment.  As per Ext. D1 Form-2, complainant’s date of birth is 25.08.1947.  Complainant did not produce any document to prove her date of birth.     According to the records of opposite party, the date of joining of the complainant in the scheme is 01.04.1972 and opposite party in their argument note stated that there was a proviso in the erstwhile EPS 1971 that the reckonable service would cease wherever there occurred a non-contributory period of one year in between two spells.  The opposite party also produced Ext. D2 certificate to show that there was a break of two years.  The complainant did not produce any document to prove continuous service.  The complainant’s PPO is renewed and revised and as per the revised PPO past service benefit entitled under the FPS 71 calculation as specified under para 12(2) (3)(b) (III) & 3 C is seen paid.  Though the complainant has stated that she had 10 years of service from 16.11.1995 to 31.12.2005 the opposite party has countered the claim by stating that the complainant has applied for pension on 24.08.2005 and hence there is only 9 years 9 months and 8 days during the period.  The opposite party has also stated that there is a non-contributory period of 7 years 11 months and 22 days and hence the period between 16.11.1995 and 24.08.2005 can be reckonable as 1 year 9 months and 16 days which is rounded to 2 years.  So the complainant cannot be given any weightage as claimed by her.  We find that the opposite party has taken such contention in the version itself and complainant has not cared to prove their case by adducing sufficient evidence.   It is also found that on the application of the complainant, commutation benefit and return of capital as provided under para 12 A and 13 enabling her to receive 100 times of the amount in bulk subject to contributions in the scheme are fixed up and paid.  The monthly pension after commutation is Rs. 449/- and the member has opted for capital return and therefore she is entitled to Rs. 404/- (Rs. 449/- - Rs. 45/-).  On going through the evidence and argument notes filed from both sides, we find that there is no deficiency of service on the side of opposite party and moreover the complainant did not produce sufficient documents to substantiate her case.  Hence the complaint is dismissed.

 

In the result, complaint is dismissed.

         

 

 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of March 2015.

 

 

 

     Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

 

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                    : PRESIDENT

 

      Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

jb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.C. No. 414/2010

APPENDIX

 

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of identity card of Smt. Ponnamma.

P2     - Copy of relieving certificate issued by Raj Kumar Impex Pvt. Ltd.

 

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

          DW1 - G. shaji

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

D1     - Copy of declaration form of Employees Family Pension Scheme,   

             1971 of complainant.

D2     - Copy of Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 –Details of break  

             in service of complainant.

D3     - Copy of particulars of Smt. Ponnamma of Employees Pension

             Scheme 1995.

 

 

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb