SARASWATHY MAHADEVAN vs REGIONAL P.F.COMMISSIONER, WEST BENGAL

BOTH these Revision Petitions are directed against the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 8.11.2002. Hence they are heard together.

THE Petitioner R.P. No. 2911/2002 is the wife of late Shri K.S. Madhavan. He was an employee of M/s. Sethia and Co. during the period April 1975 to May, 1979 and thereafter, with Vinar Systems Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta from June 1979 to 31 March, 1982. He was contributing to Provident Fund at both the places of work. On 14th March, 1987, Mr. K.S. Madhavan applied for refund of P.F. As per the Petitioner''s contention Rs. 6,900 was due to be realized from the P.F. account for the period 1987 to 1994. However, the respondent has denied this contention. During this period Mahadevan fell ill and breathed his last at Coimbatore leaving behind a minor school going daughter and the petitioner. THEreafter, the petitioner requested the respondent for rightfully payable dues which did not receive any attention. Aggrieved by the attitude of the respondent, the petitioner approached the District Forum. The case of the respondent before the District Forum was that her husband expired on 13.11.1994 and she has become eligible for family pension w.e.f. 14.11.1994 and she was receiving pension settled at the rate of Rs. 915 p.m. upto January, 1997 though always late and that she has not been receiving any amount since February, 1997. As her repeated requests to the P.F. Commissioner did not get favourable response, she approached the District Forum for a direction for payment of arrears of pension and current pension at an early date with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and also costs.

As the Respondent did not participate the proceedings before the District Forum, an ex parte order was passed by the District Forum on 18.3.1999. At this juncture the respondents approached the District Forum stating that the petitioner submitted her application in combined forms on 21.2.1995 for payment of her family pension and other benefits and after settlement of all the dues the papers were sent to Pension Cell on 28.8.1995, that monthly family pension was computed on 8.9.1995 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 after receiving requisite forms from the Petitioner and the first family pension cheque was received for the period from 14.11.1994 to 18.12.1995 on 18.12.1995 payable to the complainant. The subsequent cheques were issued timely after receiving advanced stamped receipts and life-cum-non- marriage certificate from the petitioner. And it was contended that delays were caused due to administrative reasons, as too many sections/branches in the P.F. Office are involved.

THE District Forum, after going through the records, prepared a detailed table showing dates of submission of forms, dates of receiving of cheques and the delays caused and directed the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 14% on the amount of pension, i.e. on the amount of Rs. 915 (per month) for 2 years and 3 months on account of delay during the period from June 1996 to August/September, 1998. It also directed the respondent to pay balance pension within one month with interest at the rate of 14% p.a., for the period of delay whenever such delayed payments have been made, if there has been delay of more than 15 days for any month. And, it further directed that the respondent would issue cheque for pension for each month within 7 days of furnishing advanced stamp receipt and/or life-cum-non-marriage certificate and awarded Rs. 300 as costs of litigation. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant approached the State Commission by filing two appeals, i.e. one enhancement of the rate of interest and ancillary benefits and the other is for a direction to the respondent to pay the ''pension due'' with interest. The contention of the respondent was that the rate of interest applicable in the present case is as per declared Government rate which varied between 9.9% to 12%. Moreover, it contended that P.F. account from Shethia and Co. to Vinar Co. was wrongfully transferred through a S.B.I. Challan instead of Bank draft, the latter being the correct procedure. Having gone through the records, the State Commission in its well reasoned conclusions held that there was deficiency in service in not crediting the transferred amount on a trivial ground to the P.F. Account of the deceased. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum keeping in view the harassment, and mental agony suffered by Mr. Mahadevan and subsequently by his wife and daughter, and further imposed a penal rate of interest of 3% higher than the respective statutory rate of interest from year to year for the period from 1987 to the date of actual payment. The State Commission also rejected the contention of the complainant that it was entitled to interest at 18% p.a. instead of 14% p.a. as awarded by the District Forum. The State Commission also directed the respondent to pay the accumulated pension of Rs. 6,072 of M/s. Shethia and Co. (P) Ltd. with interest till date. And, it further enhanced the cost of litigation keeping in view the longevity of litigation to Rs. 3,000.

IN Revision Petition No. 2911/2002/A, Smt. Mahadevan has claimed, inter alia, the following reliefs: (1) To order the respondents to compute the total delay in payment of pension of Rs. 915 calculated month by month for each month for the period from 13.11.1994 on understandable basis and interest calculated based on elementary mathematical principles and formulae. (2) To order payment of interest at 18% on the computed total period of delay in each of the 3 categories referred above. (3) To order for payment of interest at 18% on the P.F. due amount of Rs. 6,900 from 3.8.1987 on which date it should have been settled by statutory provision till 19.3.1999 the actual date of receipt of payment. (4) To pass such orders that will deter the respondents from perpetuating deficiency in service which affect the lives of hapless millions of poor workers and their families.

Whereas Revision Petition No. 874/2004 the Provident Fund Authorities have filed are inter alia, on the following grounds: (1) Orders passed by the lower Fora were illegal and suffered from material irregularity. (2) Respondent/complainant was not entitled for higher rate of interest. (3) Orders passed by the lower Fora are not maintainable as the same are beyond the scope and purview of Provident Fund Act and Family Pension Fund Scheme. (4) The delay in filing the Revision Petition before the National Commission was mainly due to taking instructions, opinion and having correspondence between various officers of the Central Provident Fund Organisation and hence they are bona fide and sufficient for condonation of delay.

This Revision Petition was filed in April, 2004. Revision Petitioner prayed for setting aside the orders of the lower Fora.

THE State Commission had passed the impugned orders on 8.11.2002 and an application for obtaining the certified copy of the orders were made on 19.11.2002 before the Hon''ble State Commission and the certified copies was delivered on 26.12.2002.

ACCORDINGLY, this Revision Petition has been filed with the delay of 378 days. This abnormal delay has not been sufficiently explained by the Revision Petitioner except stating that they spent lot of time in consultation and seeking instructions which in our view cannot be construed as a sufficient and good reason to condone the delay. Hence, on this count alone, this Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Coming to the grounds adduced by Smt. Madhavan in the Revision Petition No. 2911/2002, her prayer is very vague inasmuch as she has asked the respondents to compute the total delay in payment of pension month to month on understandable basis and interest calculated based on elementary mathematical principles and formulae. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner failed to explain what are these elementary mathematical principles and formulae and what should be the formulae on which delay and interest have to be computed. She had also prayed for ordering payment of interest at 18% on the P.F. due amount of Rs. 6,900 on 3.8.1987 till 19.8.87, the actual date of receipt of payment. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation has more than 3.8 crores subscribers and they have a well established method of accounting. Their accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. We cannot impose on them any new formulae, mathematical or otherwise for calculation of provident fund dues or for accounting delayed payments. However, we can always point out deficiency in their service in individual cases. At the end of her Revision Petition, she had made certain prayers in humanitarian interest not relating to the claims of the appellant.

In our view, for the deficiency in service by the EPFO, the Fora below have adequately compensated her. Necessary prayed for, relief has already been granted by the District Forum by awarding interest @ 14% p.a. on the pension amount. We cannot go into the month wise details. If after getting the awarded amount as per order of the District Forum and modified by State Commission, any discrepancy is seen by the Petitioner/Complainant, it can always bring this to the notice of the forum of original jurisdiction i.e. the District Forum for execution of its order.

IN view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission as it does not suffer from legal or factual infirmity. Therefore, both the Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petitions dismissed.