Bangalore Urban 3rd Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
No.8, 6th Floor, Sahakara Bhavan, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560 052.
Complaint Case No. CC/10/1760
1. V. Krishnappa
S/o Venkataramaiah, R/at Mudagurki Village, Venkatagiri Kote Post, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District
Karnataka
………..Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Regional Provident Commissioner
No.13, “Bavishyanidhi Bavan”, Rajaram Mohan Roy Road, Bangalore-560 025.
Karnataka
2. The Managing Director, M/s KAIC LTD.,
Hebbal, Bangalore-560 024.
Bangalore Addtl 3
Karnataka
…………Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah PRESIDENT
HONORABLE Dr. Subhashini Member
HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA Member
PRESENT:
ORDER
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE – 560 052.
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MARCH 2011
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1760/2010
PRESENT:
Sri T. Rajashekharaiah, B.A. L.L.B.,
PRESIDENT
Sri. H.M.Shivalingappa, B.Sc., LL.B.,
MEMBER
Smt. Dr. Subhashini, M.B.B.S.,
MEMBER
COMPLAINANT
V. Krishnappa,
S/o Venkataramaiah,
R/at Mudagurki Village,
Venkatagiri Kote Post,
Vijaypura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1
The Regional Provident Commissioner,
No.13, “Bavishyanidhi Bavan”,
Rajaram Mohan Roy Road,
Bangalore-560 025.
2
The Managing Director
M/s KAIC Ltd., Hebbal,
Bangalore-560 024.
ORDER
1. This Complaint is filed on 28.07.2010 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant has prayed for an Order for settlement of pension at Rs.1904/- per month and arrears in a sum of Rs.65,000/- approximately.
2. The Complainant has alleged that he was an employee under the 2nd Opposite Party since 27.2.1973. During the course of his services, there were certain anomalies in his pay particulars pending since a quite long time. The same was being agitated before the Hon’ble Labour Court and High Court. However in the mean time, the 2nd Opposite Party brought compulsory retrenchment in the guise of VRS and accordingly, relieved the Complainant of his duties on 31.10.2003. While in service, he was member of PF under PF Account No.KN/ 3853/1094. Though the 2nd Opposite Party has stated that the concerned papers pertaining to the Complaint were sent to the 1st Opposite Party for settlement of pension under EPS’95 and later again the 2nd Opposite Party sent some more papers to the 1st Opposite Party for settlement of arrears, there is no settlement of pension and arrears by the Opposite Parties. Inspite of number of visits and persuasions, they have not settled the claim till now. Hence aggrieved by the act of omission on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has approached this Forum with the above prayer.
3. The 1st Opposite Party has submitted that the Complainant was a subscriber to the PF Scheme under PF Account No. KN/3853/1094 and it has settled the PF accumulation as back as September 2005 for a sum of Rs.93,828/- by way of cheque No.181525 dt.5.9.2005. However on 16.7.2010, it had returned the 10D application form to the Complainant received on 16.6.2010 for resubmission after complying with necessary requirements. But so far the Complainant has not resubmitted the duly filled 10D Form with the required papers. According to the 1st Opposite Party, since the pension is perennial payment, the department stipulates certain clarifications that the subscriber has to fulfill. If the same is complied, the 1st Opposite Party will process the same and settle the claim of the Complainant. According to the 2nd Opposite Party, it had suffered heavy loss and as per Government Order dt.3.9.2003, all its 656 employees including the Complainant opted for VRS and got relieved after receipt of eligible entitlements from the 2nd Opposite Party. The Complainant ceases to be an employee of the 2nd Opposite Party. Form 10D (EPS) submitted by the Complainant through post was incomplete. As such the 1st Opposite Party returned the papers with a request to furnish certain documents for processing the settlement of the claim of the Complainant. Since the Complainant did not furnish the required documents, the 1st Opposite Party is unable to process the case. According to the 2nd Opposite Party, the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Denying all other allegations as false, the 2nd Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties is established?
(ii) If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?
5. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
i) Negative
ii) As per the final order.
R E A S O N S
6. POINT NO.1: From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the Complainant was an employee under the 2nd Opposite Party and took VRS. He was relieved of his duties on 31.10.2003. It is also not in dispute that he was a subscriber of PF under Account NO.KN/3853/1094. Though the Complainant contends that his pension under EPS’95, under pension scheme 2006, has not yet been settled by the Opposite Parties inspite of number of visits and persuasions, from a perusal of letter dt.15.6.2005 written by the Complainant to the 2nd Opposite Party (enclosed along with the Complaint) it is seen that the Complainant himself wanted to file Form No.10D after anomaly in his pay is set-right. That apart, by letter dt.7.6.2010 issued by the Company Secretary of the 2nd Opposite Party addressed to the Complainant, it is seen that the Complainant was intimated to resubmit Form-10D along with certain documents stated therein for settlement of the amount. According to the 1st Opposite Party, the Complainant’s PF accumulation had been settled during September 2005 by way of cheque No.181525 dt.5.9.2005 for a sum of Rs.93828/-. Further to enable the 1st Opposite Party to process and settle the claim, the 10D form submitted by the Complainant was returned on 16.7.2010 with a request to furnish certain documents. Inspite of affording ample opportunity by this Forum, the Complainant failed to adduce any evidence by way of affidavit. In the circumstances, the statement of the 1st Opposite Party on oath has to be accepted. As stated by the 1st Opposite Party, the PF accumulation has been settled by issuance of cheque dt.5.9.2005 in September 2005 and now, as expressed and submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st Opposite Party, it is ready and willing to settle the claim on receipt of the required papers in respect of Form 10D. As contended by the 1st Opposite Party, since the pension is a perennial payment, the Complainant has to comply certain clarifications required by the department. Hence, he may comply the requirements for early settlement of his pension claim. Since the Complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties, point no.1 answered in the negative. However, the Complainant shall be at liberty to resubmit the Form 10D to the 1st Opposite Party with all the documents, which were called for by the 1st Opposite Party. If the needful is done, the 1st Opposite Party shall consider the claim of the Complainant, according to law.
7. POINT NO.2: In view of our finding on Point No.1, point No.2 does no survive for consideration. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
This Complaint fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
This Order is pronounced on this the 31st day of March 2011.
Dr. SUBHASHINI H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah]
PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE Dr. Subhashini]
Member
[HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA]
Member