IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with pension matter.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/opposite parties against the impugned order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in S.C. Case No. FA/689/2010 – The Executive Engineer & Ors. Vs. Smt. Putul Dom by which, while allowing appeal partly, upheld order of District Forum allowing complaint, but set aside the order of payment of interest.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is the wife of Chandra Dom who was employee of OP No. 1. Chandra Dom died on 6.7.1996 at Farakka, leaving behind the complainant and four children. The complainant was described as the nominee in the service book of the deceased. Pension was sanctioned in her favour on 24.2.1997 and it was paid regularly upto September 1997, but subsequently, the pension was stopped. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for restoration of pension and releasing of arrears. OPs/Petitioners contested complaint and submitted that pension was sanctioned in favour of the complainant within one month of the death of her husband, but subsequently one Santosh Dom claiming himself to be the son by the first wife of Chandra Dom claimed pension; so, pension was kept in abeyance. Chandra Dom did not declare Santosh Dom as his son in his declaration dated 30.4.1990. Complainant also did not disclose this fact. Succession certificate was called from the complainant. Later on, complainant disclosed by affidavit that Santosh Dom is son by the first wife of Chandra Dom and in such circumstances, there was no deficiency in withholding pension. It was further alleged that Consumer Form has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OPs to restore the pension of the complainant from September, 1997, as per her share after final settlement of the dispute within 2 months from the date of order of District Forum. Further, awarded 15% p.a. interest on accumulated amount and also awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings. Appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and order imposing interest was set aside and rest of the order was upheld against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that District forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as per the provisions of the Pension Act, 1871, and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission has committed error in upholding the order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5. Perusal of written statement clearly reveals that OP/Petitioner had taken objection regarding jurisdiction in the written statement filed before District Forum. Learned District Forum has not dealt with this aspect. Same objection was raised by the Petitioner in Memo of Appeal, but learned State Commission has also not dealt with this aspect, though, both the Fora below ought to have decided question of jurisdiction.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, as held by the National Commission in IV State of Haryana v. Lila Ram.1 Learned Disstrict Forum and learned State Commission have referred Section 11 of the Pension Act and came to the conclusion that Pension of the claimant cannot be withheld. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that as per Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (CAT), only the