Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Hubli vs Shankar

BY this Revision Petition, the petitioner challenges order rendered by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 2483/2010. By the impugned order, the appeal was dismissed on account of non-condonation of delay of 289 days, which the appellant i.e. petitioner herein had committed.

THE respondent was in service of KSRTC as an artisan w.e.f. 17.7.1970. Admittedly, he retired on 31.8.1996 on attaining age of superannuation. He had completed more than 20 years'' service. He was member of Employees Pension Scheme prevailing before 1995. He filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Dharwad vide Complaint Case No. 293/2009 alleging that weightage of two years was not given to him as required under the new Pension Scheme, which was applicable in 1995. The complaint was partly allowed with direction to revise his pension.

THE order of the DF was passed on 8.9.2009. The petitioner filed appeal on 19.6.2010. Along with appeal, an application for condonation of the delay was filed. The application showed certain reasons, particularly, the delay in processing of the matter. The State Consumer Commission found that the delay was not explained to its satisfaction. Hence, the application was dismissed and consequently the appeal itself was dismissed.

WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the petition is most important because it will be applicable to many similar cases. He submits that interpretation of the expression "Pension service" as used in Section 2(v) of the Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995 is required to be properly done. The Counsel for the respondent points out that the delay in filing of the appeal before the State Commission is not duly explained and, therefore, dismissal of the delay condonation application as well as the appeal is legal and proper.

CONSIDERING the fact that the delay condonation application itself indicated that free copy of the impugned order of the District Consumer Forum was made available on 11.6.2010 and thereafter no serious efforts were made to obtain certified copy is the view taken by the State Commission. The petitioner alleged that District Consumer Forum failed to send free copy and the order was brought to its notice when the notice of the execution was received. Thereafter, certified copy was applied for and obtained and the appeal was preferred. As per observations of the State Commission, the petitioner approached the District Forum for free copy on 11.6.2010.

PERUSAL of the impugned order shows that the petitioner came out with a case that the free copy was never supplied to him by the District Consumer Forum. The contention of the petitioner was that he gathered knowledge of the impugned order of the District Consumer Forum only when a notice in the execution petition of the complainant was received. Thereafter, he immediately applied for certified copy on 11.6.2010 and hence there was no delay in filing of the appeal. He further submitted that if there was some delay yet it was bona fide and unintentional.

WE find from the impugned order that the State Commission was impressed by the fact that the petitioner was conducting the proceedings in person and, therefore, he could have gathered knowledge of the impugned order. The State Commission recorded reasons in paragraph 8 of the impugned order. What is observed by the State Commission from the order sheet maintained by the District Consumer Forum reveals that the petitioner was attending the matter since beginning up till the end of the argument. It is further observed by the State Commission that the free copy of the order was issued to the complainant on 5.10.2009 though the impugned order was pronounced on 8.9.2009. The State Commission observed: "Why the OP/appellant failed to collect the said copy on the same day is not known. There is an endorsement that due to some defect in the Xerox machine free copies were prepared on 30.12.2009. This endorsement appears to be not correct because complainant himself received the copy on 5.10.2009."

THE question which the State Commission should have addressed is whether the District Consumer Forum issued any free copy to the petitioner and if it was so issued then on what date the same was received by the petitioner. The State Commission did not believe the endorsement that the Xerox machine was not in working order and therefore the free copies were prepared on 30th December, 2009. The State Commission should have called for explanation from the District Consumer Forum as to since when was the machine out of order. In the absence of proper record, the State Commission should not have reached conclusion that the free copy could have been obtained by the complainant on 5.10.2009 itself. We are of the opinion that the reasons ascribed by the State Commission, while rejecting the delay condonation application, are not sufficient. The appeal involved interpretation of the Employee''s Pension Scheme, 1995, and therefore, the delay condonation application should have been decide with more seriousness.

FOR the reasons discussed hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside and the petition is partly allowed. The delay condonation application i.e. I.A. No. II before the State Commission shall be restored. It may be heard afresh by giving due opportunity to both the sides to place on record the relevant documents. The State Commission may also call report from the District Consumer Forum as to since when the Xerox machine was found defective and when it became operative. DF may be called upon to inform the State Commission as to whether any free copy was supplied to the petitioner and if so, when it was received by the latter. The petition is accordingly partly allowed, keeping all the issues of limitation and all other issues open for decision of the State Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. Revision Petition disposed of.