ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. DROUPADI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "the Provident Fund Organisation"), Opposite Party challenging the Order dtd. 29/8/2014 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 322 of 2013. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Provident Fund Organisation by affirming the Order dtd. 31/10/2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 69/2005 whereby the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Provident Fund Organisation to return 28,100/- to the Complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1/4/99 till realization; pay 604/- on production of pass book of pension drawn from Canara Bank alongwith compensation of 5,000/- and cost of 1500/-.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had joined as a cashew worker at KSCDC Factory Kollam in the year 1970. She became member of Provident Fund Organisation vide A/c No. KR/1232/1096. Her employer deducted the subscription and remitted to the Petitioner Provident Fund Organisation from time to time. She became member of Employees Family Pension Scheme in 1971. On 16/11/1995, the Family Pension Fund Scheme was substituted with Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The Complainant joined with the EPS 1995 and respective contributions were deducted by her employer and got remitted to Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation. The Complainant was terminated from service on 1/7/2001. She applied for eligible pension in Form No. 10D with the Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation. It is the case of the Complainant that although she was entitled/eligible for monthly pension of 800/- under the Provident Fund Act, 1995 yet the Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation sanctioned her a monthly pension of 544/-. It was further stated in the Complaint that despite deducting 181/- monthly towards commuted pension, the Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation had not disbursed the commuted pension amounting to 18,100/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation, a Complaint was filed before the District Forum.

(3.) Upon notice, by filing its Written Version, the Provident Fund Organisation contested the Complaint on the ground that although the complainant has been contributing to the Fund from 1/3/1971 yet there is non-contributory period of 6631 days (18 years 2 months 1 day) during the period 1/3/1971 to 16/11/1995. this non-contributory period can be regularized only if the due contribution thereof has been received in Employee's Pension Fund as specified by Para 9(b) of the EPS, 1995. For regularizing the non-contributory period and break in past service in terms of the Para 9(b) of the EPS, 1995, a sum of 33,883/- was required to be remitted, therefore, they diverted a sum of 1,752/- from her EPF account, 22,131/- from her pension arrear and 10,000/- from her Employees' Provident Fund. The Complainant had left the service on 31/12/2001 as per Form No. 19. The Complainant is not entitled for monthly pension of 800/- and she is eligible for monthly pension of 500/- as per terms of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. As per option availed by the Complainant, a sum of 363/- and 54/- has been deducted from pension towards commutation of pension and return of capital respectively. By surrendering 1/3rd , i.e., 363/-, the Complainant would get 18,100/- in lump sum and by way of surrendering 54/-, the nominee of the Complainant would get 36,300/- in the event of her death. They acted in lines with the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995. It was submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.