SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, MEMBER
The CDRF, Kozhikode, as per its order dated 18.05.2000 in O.P.53/2000, has directed the opposite parties to give pension to the complainant at Rs.433/- per month from 01.04.1998 with cost of Rs.500/- within two months from the date of the order and it is aggrieved by the said direction that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties.
2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he was an employee of the opposite parties and that after retirement he was eligible to get pension @ Rs.433 per month and after commutation he was getting only Rs.313/- per month till 01.04.1998. It is his case that after the commutation period of 10 years is over he is entitled to get back the original pension of Rs.433/- per month and the opposite parties had declined the said payment. It is also his case that he was getting only Rs.313/- per month and alleging deficiency of service, the complaint was filed for directions to the opposite parties to give his pension at the rate of Rs.433/- per month itself from 01.04.1998 onwards.
3. The opposite parties in their version contended that the complaint was not maintainable and that it was as per agreement that the complainant was given commutation and even after the commutation period is over, the complainant is eligible to get only at the reduced rate of Rs.313/- per month. Contenting that there was no deficiency of service the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the complainant/respondent is not entitled to get the pension at the rate of Rs.433/- per month after the period of commutation is over. It is his very case that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum as there was no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties. He has submitted before us that no consideration was paid by the complainant/respondent for joining the pension scheme and the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in R.P.F. Commissioner Vs. Sivakumar Joshi is not applicable in the instant case. He has also argued that the observation of the Forum below that for joining the scheme the employee makes some initial payment at the 1st instance which could be treated as consideration is perse unsustainable as there was no consideration at all from the side of the complainant towards the scheme. He has also advanced the contention that the complainant himself has agreed to receive the reduced pension if he opts for commutation.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. He has argued before us that it was unjust and unfair to continue to reduce the pension even after the commutation period of pension for 10 years was over by 01.04.1998. He has also submitted that the complaint was maintainable before the Forum as the issue related to the payment of pension.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the complainant/respondent was an employee of the opposite parties/appellants. It is also admitted that the complainant had opted for commutation of pension for 10 years which expired on 01.04.1998. The complainant/respondent would argue that he is entitled to get full pension at the rate of Rs.433/- per month from 01.04.1998. He would also argue that the reduced pension was agreed for the period of 10 years only and as soon as the period is over the opposite parties were bound to give him the full pension of Rs.433/- per month. He has also produced before us the copy of option form. It is also noted that the complainant has been receiving only at the rate of Rs.313/- even after 01.04.198. However the case of the opposite parties before us is that the complainant was not maintainable before the Forum below. It is argued that the complainant has not contributed any amount to the pension scheme and that in the case of R.P.F. Commissioner Vs. Sivakumar Joshi, there was contribution by the employees to the scheme under the Employees Provident Fund Act and in the instant case there is nothing to show that the complainant has contributed or made some initial payment to this scheme. We find force in the said argument of the learned counsel. On a perusal of the order we find that apart from the statement that the complaint was an employee of the opposite parties no evidence is adduced in support of the fact that the complainant has contributed or made some initial payment to the scheme. In the said circumstance we are not inclined to uphold the finding of the Forum below that for joining the scheme the employee makes some initial payments at the 1st instance. The learned counsel for the appellants had argued before us that it was with a view to give some solace to the employees that they have purchased annuities from the Life Insurance Corporation of India for enabling the retired employees to get some pension and hence it is our irresistible conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum and the Forum below ought to have adverted to the said position before directing the opposite parties to pay the full pension even after 10 years period of commutation. It is also to be found that the pension was paid by LIC of India and the complainant/ respondent had not made the LIC as a proper party in the party array. Hence in all respects we find that the appeal is to be allowed setting aside the order of the Forum below.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 18.05.2000 in O.P.53/2000 of CDRF, Kozhikode is set aside. In the facts and circumstance of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.