Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/257

Subhadra L - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

Kallada P Kunjumon

22 Jan 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.257/14

JUDGMENT DATED :22/01/2016

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.135/08 on the file of CDRF, Kollam, order dated ; 24.01.2014)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. A. RADHA                             : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

 

1.   Smt. Subhadra. L, (Died)

          Kattasseri Puthen Veedu, Mulavana P.O.,

          Kundara, Kollam.

 

2.   Sasidharan, Kattasseri Puthen Veedu,

          Mulavana P.O., Mulavana, Kundara.

 

3.   Sivanandhan, Kattasseri Puthen Veedu,

          Mulavana P.O., Mulavana, Kundara.

 

4.   Raveendran, (Died),

          Kattasseri Puthen Veedu, Mulavana P.O.,

          Kundara, Kollam.

 

5.   Radha, D/o. Subhadra,

          Kattasseri Puthen Veedu, Mulavana P.O.,

          Kundara, Kollam.

 

6.   Lathika, Kattasseri Puthen Veedu,

Mulavana P.O.,

          Kundara, Kollam.

 

         

7.   Remya, D/o. Raveendran,

Kattasseri Puthen Veedu, Mulavana P.O.,

          Kundara, Kollam.

 

8.   Rakhi, D/o. Raveendran,

          Kattasseri Puthen Veedu, Mulavana P.O.,

          Kundara, Kollam.

 

9.   Rekha, D/o. Raveendran,

          Kattasseri Puthen Veedu, Mulavana P.O.,

          Kundara, Kollam.

 

          (By Adv: Kallada P. Kunjumon & Dinesh Sajan)

 

                                                                                      Vs.

 

RESPONDENT

 

          The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,

          Sub Regional Office,Parameswara Nagar,

          Kollam.

 

          (By Adv: K.V. Karmachandran)

 

JUDGMENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

        The complainant died during the pendency of proceedings before the consumer forum. Appellants are the legal heirs of the diseased complainant impleaded before the consumer forum. The complainant alleged that she was an employee at M/s. Prasanthi Cashew Company and she attained superanuation of 31.12.97. She applied for pension under the pension scheme 1995.But the opposite party denied pension to the deceased complainant stating that the date of birth disclosed by the employer was much earlier and the complainant retired from service before the commencement of the pension scheme 1995. Even after producing the birth certificate the opposite party deliberately denied pensionary benefits to the complainant. Hence she approached the consumer forum.

        2.     The opposite party contended before the consumer forum that as per the records submitted by the employer the complainant joined the provident fund scheme on 31.03.63 and she retired from service on 28.02.95. She was not a family pension scheme member. She had settled her provident fund account on 01.03.99.  The application of the complainant was rejected as per letter dated 02.03.99 for the reason that she had completed 60 years of age on 21.02.91 long before the commencement of the pension scheme 1995. Again pension was denied on 22.12.2003. The complaint is filed on 15.06.2008 eight years after denial of pension. No application to condone the delay is filed by the complainant. Hence the complaint is barred under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. As per the nomination form submitted by the complainant her date of birth is on 21.02.1931 and she retired from service on 28.02.95. The complainant did not join 1971 scheme. She had not contributed under the said scheme. The complainant applied for final settlement of her EPF account only in 1999 and was settled on 01.03.99 without adjusting any amount towards family pension scheme 1971 or employees pension scheme 1995. Since the complainant attained 58 years of age on 21.02.89, she is not entitled to exercise option to join employees pension scheme 1995. The complainant approached the adalath held by employees provident fund organization sub regional office, kollam and the competent authority verified her service file and found that her application could not be accepted. She has produced birth certificate obtained from the secretary and local registrar of births and deaths, kundara grama panchayat issued on 12.11.2007 as per which the date of birth of the complainant is on 25.12.1939. But the date of registration of birth was on 09.11.2007. Hence the certificate is not acceptable as not supported by any other proof. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

        3.     Before the consumer forum no oral evidence was adduced. The documents produced by the complainant were photocopies. Hence were not marked. One witness was examined on the side of the opposite party and Exts.D1 to D6 were marked. Finding that the complaint was filed after five years from the date of denial of pension, the consumer forum dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. The said order is challenged in this appeal.

        4.     As rightly found by the consumer forum the available records show that the complainant retired from service prior to the commencement of the employees pension scheme 1995. So she was not entitled to opt the scheme. That apart there is two consecutive denial of pension and the complaint is filed more than five years after the last denial of pension. There is inordinate delay in submitting the complaint. So there is no error in the finding of the consumer forum in this regard. Her registration of birth was in 2007 and therefore the birth certificate was not authentic to establish the date of retirement of the diseased complainant.

        The only question that remains to be considered is whether the additional documents sought to be admitted in evidence in appeal in any way improves matters. Again all the documents submitted are photocopies and not authentic documents.  To admit additional evidence in appeal certain legal formalities are to be complied with.  No application is filed to admit additional document in evidence in appeal, nor the opposite party is given notice of production of the additional documents. Even if these documents are considered it would only show that the opposite party is ready to consider the claim provided past contribution is paid. This expression of willingness does not give fresh cause of action to the complainant nor would it show deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It follows that there is no material to reverse the findings of the consumer forum, kollam. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                       

      A. RADHA          : MEMBER

 

 

                                       SANTHAMMA THOMAS       : MEMBER

 

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.257/14

JUDGMENT DATED :22/01/2016

 

 

 

nb