BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.138/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 29^th November 2017

Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT  

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                   

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

    3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                

                                            B.E., LLB., PGDCLP,    - MEMBER

Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint against the opposite party, under C.P.Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service in fixing the pension amount payable and for non-payment of arrears with interest and seeking a direction to pay the same with compensation, cost of the proceedings with other reliefs.
2.     The complainant being a member of Employee Family Pension Scheme Contributed to the Employees Pension Fund since 1982.  The contribution of the complainant was transferred to the new scheme (i.e. Employees Pension Fund under para 3(4) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995) and continuously contributed until retirement on 16.02.2004 and opted for pension from 25.05.2004.  Thus served for about 13 years prior to 15.11.1995 and later served for 8 years and three months after 16.11.1995.  Thereby, he rendered a total service of 21 years and the pension was to be calculated as per the provisions of sub-para (i)(a), (b) and (ii) of para 12(4) read with para 10(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.
3.     The opposite party paid the pension, without considering the weightage of two years as per para 10(2) of the Act, even though the complainant had put in a service of 21 years.  As such, the complainant suffered loss due to deficiency in service.  Hence, the complaint to refix the pension amount payable along with arrears and interest on the same at 12% p.a. for belated payment and for other reliefs.
4.     The opposite party filed its version and admits the contribution of the complainant towards Employees Pension Scheme till his retirement on 16.02.2004.  Further, contemplates that, it had already paid the pension arrears and refixed the pension payable to the complainant.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5.     Both parties filed affidavit and written arguments.  After hearing the oral submissions, matter posted for orders.  
6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant established the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for not fixing the revised pension and for not paying the arrears with interest and thereby he is entitled for the relief sought?
3. To What order?

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

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

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

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- Admittedly the complainant joined and contributed to the Employees Pension Scheme until his retirement till 16.02.2004.  He had contributed for a total period of 21 years including the past service.  Thereby he was eligible for two years service weightage benefits and as such claimed the benefit with arrears and refixation of the pension payable to him.
9.    The opposite party on verification of the documents furnished and as per the prevailing provisions and the circulars issued by the Government, arrived at the calculation and on rectifying the mistakes in calculation and refixed the pension, the arrears amount was paid at a later date, i.e. after filing of this complaint.  This is stated in the affidavit filed by complainant.  In spite of the same, the complainant demanded for interest and penalties for the belated payments and other reliefs. 
10. Considering the affidavit filed by the opposite party, we opine that belated payment was unintentional and the same was due to the directions issued by the Government and for calculation of the amount.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
11. Point No.2:- In view of the above findings, this point does not call for discussion.
12. Point No.3:- In view of the findings in point No.1, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 29^th November 2017)