SARASWATHY MAHADEVAN vs REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

THIS is the complainant''s appeal against the order dated 19.11.1999 passed by the District Forum at 24 Parganas (North) in the D.F. Case No. 83/1997. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder :

THE complainant''s husband Sri K.S. Mahadevan expired on 13.11.1994 and on his death the complainant became eligible for family pension. THE complainant''s allegation was that she was receiving the monthly pension with considerable delay and no pension was received by her after November, 1997. THE complainant further alleged that the pension paid was Rs. 915/- per month and the amount of pension was not revised as per the latest provisions of the family pension scheme. THE O.P. contested the case and contended that there was no delay in granting the pension and the complainant herself was responsible for the delay, if any, due to late submission of advance stamped receipt and life-cum-non marriage certificate. THE O.P. further submitted that the initial delay in the payment was on account of administrative reasons. THE Forum in its judgment tried to calculate the amount of delay in disbursement of monthly pension in a fairly detailed manner and came to the conclusion that the total delay was about 27 months. Accordingly the Forum directed the O.P. to pay interest @ 14% p.a. on the amount of pension of Rs. 915/- for 2 years and 3 months. It also directed that the O.P. will pay off all the arrear pension within a month with interest @ 14% for the period of delay. THE Forum further directed that henceforth O.P. will issue cheque for pension for each month within 7 days of furnishing advance stamped receipt and/or life-cum-non marriage certificate. Additionally hearing fee of Rs. 300/- was granted. Being not satisfied with this order the complainant has come in appeal before the Commission. In the appeal the appellant has mainly agitated on two points, viz. (a) the period of delay has been computed by the Forum on the basis of the respondent''s version and not on the basis of documentary evidence in support of the appellant''s version; (b) the rate of interest of 14% granted by the Forum is inadequate and the same should be increased to 18% p.a. taking into account the gross deficiency in service. The appellant has further alleged that even the impugned order passed by the Forum is yet to be complied by the respondents.

First we take up the question of interest granted by the Forum as compensation for the delay. As stated above the Forum granted interest @ 14% p.a. for the period of delay. It is to be noted that this rate of interest is higher than the statutory rate allowed on P.F. balance by at least two to three percentage points. Accordingly we think that the interest rate of 14% as granted by the Forum is adequate as compensation for the delay and the appellant''s claim for 18% interest being excessive, cannot be accepted. In regard to the total period of delay in disbursement of pension the appellant has submitted a detailed statement showing the various dates on which the requisite documents, viz. advance stamped receipt and life-cum-non marriage certificate were furnished to the respondent and the corresponding dates on which the pension amounts credited to her bank account. On an examination of the detailed statement it is found that in regard to the different dates of submission of relevant documents to the respondent the appellant''s version does not agree with the version of the respondent and if the appellant''s version is accepted the period of delay will be more than that worked out by the Forum in its order, the latter being largely based on the respondent''s version. The appellant has produced documents in support of her contention in regard to the dates of submission of different documents to the respondent. In view of this the issue in the appeal boils down to reconciliation of the appellant''s version with the respondent''s version. This obviously involves thorough examination of a large number of documents and it may also entail examination and cross-examination of relevant witnesses. In our opinion a Consumer Court is not the appropriate Forum for such adjudication involving detailed examination of a large number of documents and/or examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Accordingly we are of the opinion that if the appellant is not satisfied with the calculation of the period of delay as done by the Forum, she should approach the Civil Court for redress. In regard to the appellant''s allegation that the Forum''s order is yet to be fully complied by the O.Ps. The complainant may file execution proceeding before the Executing Court for ensuring compliance.

IN view of what has been discussed above the impugned order of the Forum is affirmed and the appeal fails. The appellant is at liberty to move the appropriate Forum for redress, if she so desires. The appeal be disposed of accordingly. Before we conclude this order we deem it appropriate to observe that from the documents furnished by the appellant it appears that the Forum initially passed an ex parte order on 18.3.1999 in the same case, viz. Case No. 83/1997. We have seen a copy of this order and we find that this order was passed after going into the merits of the matter though the hearing was held ex parte. Subsequently when the O.P. took up the matter with the Forum, the Forum appears to have rescinded its earlier order dated 18.3.1999 and passed the impugned order on 19.11.1999. It is not clear as to how the Forum could rescind its earlier order which was passed on merits, as there does not appear to be any such provision in the Consumer Protection Act. However, we refrain from passing any order in this regard as the appellant in her Memo of Appeal has not specifically challenged the rescinding of the earlier order dated 18.3.1999 by the Forum. Appeal dismissed.