COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME vs M P SURESH KUMAR

-THE opposite party in COP No. 13/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karur, is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows : The complainant was employed in M/s. Beehive Foundry Engineering Works. He was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme. He met with an accident while he was travelling in an auto rickshaw at Vijay Nagar, Bangalore. He sustained injuries and was taken to hospital. He also took treatment in a private hospital. Because of the accident, he was permanently totally disabled for all works which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The treatment given in various hospitals did not improve his condition. He applied to the opposite party. The complainant was referred by the opposite party to Medical Board to get a medical certificate regarding his permanent disablement. The complainant appeared before the Medical Board at Karur. The Medical Board sent a report to the effect that the complainant was unfit to do any work. After receipt of the report from the Medical Board, the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant stating that he was not eligible to get the disablement benefit that he had sustained only 75% of disablement as per the certificate issued by the Medical Board and that he would be entitled to get the pension only if the disablement was 100%. Under these circumstances the complaint came to be filed.

THE opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the Medical Board had given a certificate to the effect that the disablement was only 75%, and as per the provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, a member who was permanently totally disabled during employment would be entitled to pension as admissible under sub-paragraphs 2 to 5 of paragraph 12 as the case may be. The claim was rightly rejected. The District Forum passed an order directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 450 per month as pension for his life and the arrears of pension @ Rs. 450 with interest at 12% p. a. from 13. 1. 1997 till date of realization; Rs. 10,000 towards damags for mental agony and deficiency in service and Rs. 1,000 as costs. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

The learned Counsel for the opposite party/appellant submitted that as per the provisions contained in paragraph 15 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, only if the disablement was 100% pension was payable and the opposite party had rejected the claim application of the complainant as per the provisions of the said scheme and the guidelines issued by the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) in Circular No. Pension/2/a/clarification/96 dated 24. 8. 1999. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service.

PER contra, the learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent submitted that the District Forum had rightly appreciated the documents filed and relied on the report of the Medical Board wherein it has been clearly stated that the complainant was permanently and totally unfit to do all work which he was capable of performing at the time of his disablement. Further, in Column 13 of the same document, it was categorically stated that the patient was permanently and totally disabled and unfit for any work. On a proper reading of the said document, the District Forum held that the complainant would be entitled to the relief. We have gone through the materials on record and we are saitsfied that no exception could be taken to the decision of the District Forum. It cannot be disputed that the complainant is entitled to pension under the scheme by virtue of his permanent disablement which had rendered him unfit for performing any work he was capable of doing at the time of such disablement. The complainant had been working as a Site Engineer in M/s. Beehive Foundry Engineering Works, Karur, at the time of the accident which left him totally and permanently disabled. As per the Medical Board''s report Ex. A2, the complainant had suffered injury to the brain, incoherent speech, unsteady gait of 75% and the certificate had clearly stated that the complainant was permanently totally disabled and was unfit to do any work he was capable of doing. The provisions also do not say that the disablement must be 100% as contended by the opposite party. In such circumstances, we do not find any merit whatsoever in the appeal.

THE appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.