ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FIND COMMISSIONER Vs. REVAMMA

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. 29/5/2015 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 471 of 2013. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Provident Fund Organisation by affirming the Order dtd. 4/5/2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 325/2009 whereby, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Provident Fund Organisation to pay monthly pension of 448/- w.e.f. 1/7/2008 with arrears alongwith interest @6% p.a. from 1/7/2008 till the date of payment together with cost of 1500/-.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had joined as a worker at Rajan Cashew Company in the year 1996. Her PF A/c No. was KR/12285C/466. After rendering service for about 10 years, she left the service in 2008. The Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation sanctioned her monthly pension of 46/-. It is the case of the Complainant that like other co-worker, who are getting monthly pension of 635/-, although she is also eligible for monthly pension of 635/- yet the Opposite Party Organisation has wrongly sanctioned her monthly pension of 874/-. 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 the Complainant had non-contributory period of 2829 days and therefore, her pensionable service was of 2 years 6 months 15 days, which was rounded off to 3 years. These non-contributory periods were not counted for pension benefits. As per EPF Scheme, 1995, her monthly pension was calculated to be 46/- per month which is being released every month. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and it was prayed that Complaint be dismissed.