REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs DINANATH RAJPUT

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 10.11.2006 in Complaint No. 282/2006 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short), directing the appellant to pay to the complainant/respondent No. 1, family pension with interest @ 6% p.a. payable from 31.12.1986, besides compensation of Rs. 5,000 for mental harassment. Rs. 500 as cost of the complaint was also awarded, as against the appellant.

THE relevant averments of the complainant/respondent No. 1 stated in brief are that he was an employee of respondent No. 2-Bhilai Steel Plant and retired on 31.12.1986, after about 15 years. It was averred that deduction of Rs. 17 per month were made from his salary towards ''Provident Fund monthly pension account'', amounting to Rs. 2,00,000 which he was entitled to. However, since the grievance of the complainant was not settled and the amount was not paid to him, he approached the District Forum. The complaint was resisted by the appellant ''Employees Provident Fund Commissioner''. It was stated that the form submitted by the complainant for payment of family pension was forwarded to Regional Office of the Provident Fund Commissioner, Raipur. It was further averred that so far as Employee''s Provident Fund amount is concerned, an amount of Rs. 23,664 was paid to the complainant vide voucher No. 1445 dated 9.2.1987. No other amount was liable to be paid to him. It was further averred that Family Pension Scheme, 1971 did not entitle the employee to receive family pension and further that Family Pension Scheme, 1995 was applicable from 16.11.1995 the benefit of which cannot be given to the complainant, in view of the fact, that he retired much earlier, on 31.12.1986.

District Forum in the impugned order observed that since the appellant has failed to furnish particulars regarding payment of family pension to the complainant and as it did not take necessary steps in that regard, therefore, there was deficiency in service. It was accordingly directed that family pension be paid to the complainant with interest, compensation etc. was also awarded as has been mentioned above.

ARGUMENTS of the learned Counsel for the parties heard. Record perused. It may be observed at the outset that the averments in the complaint regarding payment of family pension are vague. It also appears that the complainant has taken voluntary retirement on 31.12.1986 and the Provident Fund amount of the complainant was paid to him immediately thereafter. The complaint filed on 23.6.2006 is also much belated and is barred by time.

MOREOVER, complainant/respondent No. 1 has not specified as to under what scheme he is entitled to get family pension. Learned Counsel for complainant/respondent No. 1 however, on being asked, has stated that family pension is claimed by the complainant under Family Pension Scheme, 1971. However, learned Counsel during arguments submitted that the complainant/respondent No. 1 no longer claims family pension by way of present complaint, but only claims the amount of Provident Fund payable to him. As noted earlier, the details and particulars of P.F. deducted from the complainant have not been furnished by the complainant. Moreover, appellant in its written version has clearly specified that an amount of Rs. 23,664 was paid to the complainant vide voucher No. 1445 dated 9.2.1987 towards his provident fund dues. There is no reason why such a statement with particulars of voucher, date etc. should be disbelieved. It may be mentioned that there is a document on the record of complaint from the establishment of Hindustan Steel Ltd. In the said document, the name of the complainant Dinanath appears at Sl. No. 3237 in which, date of his retirement is mentioned as 31.12.1986 and thereafter an entry of amount of Rs. 1,095 has been made. Even in the light of said document it does no appear that the complainant is entitled to the benefit under Family Pension Scheme, 1971. Moreover, as noted earlier, the complainant''s Counsel has stated that he no longer claims family pension. Moreover, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1971 Clauses 30 and 29 clearly postulate that family pension is not payable to the employee himself, but the same is payable to his legal representatives, on his death. In view of the above, the complainant himself being the employee is not entitled to family pension under the said Family Pension Scheme, 1971. No rules or provision regarding payment of family pension to the complainant has been shown, nor the complainant was pressed during the hearing of the appeal on that count, family pension cannot be directed to be paid to the complainant/respondent No. 1. Hence, the impugned order appears to be erroneous. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint stands dismissed. Appeal allowed.