REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs D. ROSE MARY

-THE 1st opposite party is the appellant. THE complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) for a direction to the opposite parties to release pensionary benefit and for further direction to pay interest on the delayed pensionary benefit and to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for sufferings and loss and cost of Rs. 3,500/-.

THE 1st opposite party contended that the complainant was not a consumer. THE date of birth of the complainant was mentioned as 22.3.1950 in her nomination form and, therefore, it cannot be subsequently altered for her benefit and that the complainant is only entitled to superannuation pension on attaining the age of 58 years and as her date of birth is 22.3.1950, she is not entitled to get any pension. The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to release the pensionary benefits within a month from the date of receipt of the order and to pay interest on the benefits @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 22.9.1996 with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and a cost of Rs. 500/-.

Aggrieved by the same, the 1st opposite party has come forward with this appeal.

IT is to be pointed out that the complainant has produced records such a Secondary School Leaving Certificate and Transfer Certificate which all show that she was born on 22.9.1946. She has also written to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner mentioning that she was born on 22.9.1946. She further has brought to the notice that in the form issued by the pension authorities, it has been erroneously printed as 22.3.1950. Thus, we find that it is a mistake committed by the opposite parties in giving the date of birth as 22.3.1950. In the proceedings of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Employees Pension Scheme, a certificate has been issued wherein they have wrongly mentioned as 22.3.1950. The complainant cannot be made liable for the mistake committed by the opposite parties. If her date of birth is 22.9.1946, then she becomes eligible for the benefits. They have wrongly entered the date of birth in the document for which they cannot hold the complainant responsible. Therefore, in such circumstances, the District Forum rightly held that there has been a deficiency in service and issued the necessary direction. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to differ from the same. The complainant who appeared in person would also submit that after the order, she is being paid the pension amount regularly. Therefore, in the circumstances, we hold that it is just and necessary to dismiss the appeal without cost. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the District Forum. But, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.