1.      The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Commission  dated 19.03.2015 in First Appeal No.620 of 2013 of the petitioner whereby his appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 12.11.2012 in complaint case No.230 of 2012  of respondent no.1 to 3/complainants, was dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that Late Sh. Chhaju Ram was an employee of respondent No.5.  On his demise, his legal representatives were entitled for the benefit of pension.  He expired on 27.10.2003.  Although, the legal representatives had become entitled for the pension, the pension was not disbursed to them till the year 2012.  In the year 2012, the complainants sent a legal notice to the petitioner and asked for the submission of the life certificate.  According to the petitioners, the said certificate was submitted in April, 2012.  Thereafter, in May 2012, the pension was disbursed to them.  Aggrieved by such delay in payment of the disbursement of the pension, the complaint was filed by the pensioner.  The complaint was allowed and following directions were issued:

“In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by the complainants is partly accepted with a direction to OP Nos.1 to 4 to pay interest to the complainants @ 9% per annum from the date the amount in question was due till the date of actual credit thereof in each case to their accounts alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- within one month from the receipt of copy of this order failing which OP Nos.1 to 4 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on total sum payable as interest to all the complainants as also on litigation expenses as mentioned aforesaid from the date of order till realization.  Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room.”

3.      The said complaint was against the petitioner and respondent no.4 & 5.  Respondent no.4 is the Bank with whom the pensioners were having an account wherein the pension was required to be credited.  The defense of the Bank had been that since no disbursement of the pension was made by the petitioners, the same could not be credited to the pensioners account.  The stand of the petitioner was that since requisite document i.e. life certificate was not furnished by the pensioners, the pension could not be disbursed in their favor.

4.      Against the order of the District Forum whereby liability was jointly and severely fastened upon the petitioner and the respondent no.4, two appeals were filed both by petitioner and the bank.  The appeal of the bank was allowed by the State Commission and he had been absolved of the liability to pay the interest on the delay of disbursement of the pension.  This order has not been challenged by the pensioners i.e. the complainants and thus, has attained finality.  The petitioners appeal, however, was dismissed and the entire liability of interest etc. was imposed upon it.

5.      In the present revision petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that PPO had already been issued on 4.10.2004 but pension could not be disbursed since life certificate was not furnished by the pensioners.  It is contended that there is no delay in disbursement of the pension on the part of the petitioners since as soon as the life certificate was furnished by the pensioners, the pension was disbursed.  It is submitted that the complaint ought to have been dismissed qua the petitioner.  It is further submitted that even on the date when the complaint was filed, the entire pension amount due till May, 2012 was disbursed in favour of the pensioners.

6.      It is argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the pensioners/complainants that from the facts of the record, it is apparent that no efforts had been made by the petitioners to obtain the requisite documents.  They had not received any letter from the petitioner asking for the submission of the life certificate till the time they asked the complainant to furnish the same in reply to their legal notice.  It is submitted that in view of the facts of the case, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or infirmity and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7.      I have given thoughtful consideration of the rival contentions and perused the relevant record.

8.      It is apparent from the record that pension had not been disbursed till the year 2012 although, it became due by the petitioner in the year 2004.  Their plea is that the life certificate is not furnished by the pensioner.  It has been observed by the Fora below that there was nothing on record to show that the pensioners/complainants were ever asked to furnish any life certificate till the year 2012.  It was certainly the duty of the petitioners to see to it that all the requisite documents are there on record which are necessary for disbursement of the pension.  In case of any deficiency of the requisite documents, it is their duty to inform the pensioner, and thus required to furnish such document.  If that is not done by the petitioner, the fault lies with them.

9.      It is apparent that the petitioner was to disburse the pension amount to the bank, who after obtaining the life certificate from the pensioner, will credit the pension amount in their account.  Admittedly, the pension amount was not disbursed by the petitioner to the Bank for credit in the account of the complainants.  Deficiency certainly lies with the petitioners. 

10.    I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, the present revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost.