IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdictional error - Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Provident Fund Organisation”), Opposite Party challenging the Order dated 29.08.2014 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 322 of 2013. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Provident Fund Organisation by affirming the Order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 69/2005 whereby the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Provident Fund Organisation to return Rs.28,100/- to the Complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.04.99 till realization; pay Rs.604/- on production of pass book of pension drawn from Canara Bank alongwith compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.1500/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had joined as a cashew worker at KSCDC Factory Kollam in the year 1970. She became member of Provident Fund Organisation vide A/c No. KR/1232/1096. Her employer deducted the subscription and remitted to the Petitioner Provident Fund Organisation from time to time. She became member of Employees Family Pension Scheme in 1971. On 16.11.1995, the Family Pension Fund Scheme was substituted with Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The Complainant joined with the EPS 1995 and respective contributions were deducted by her employer and got remitted to Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation. The Complainant was terminated from service on 01.07.2001. She applied for eligible pension in Form No. 10D with the Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation. It is the case of the Complainant that although she was entitled/eligible for monthly pension of Rs.800/- under the Provident Fund Act, 1995 yet the Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation sanctioned her a monthly pension of Rs.544/-. It was further stated in the Complaint that despite deducting Rs.181/- monthly towards commuted pension, the Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation had not disbursed the commuted pension amounting to Rs.18,100/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation, a Complaint was filed before the District Forum.

3. Upon notice, by filing its Written Version, the Provident Fund Organisation contested the Complaint on the ground that although the complainant has been contributing to the Fund from 01.03.1971 yet there is non-contributory period of 6631 days (18 years 2 months 1 day) during the period 01.03.1971 to 16.11.1995. this non-contributory period can be regularized only if the due contribution thereof has been received in Employee’s Pension Fund as specified by Para 9(b) of the EPS, 1995. For regularizing the non-contributory period and break in past service in terms of the Para 9(b) of the EPS, 1995, a sum of Rs.33,883/- was required to be remitted, therefore, they diverted a sum of Rs.1,752/- from her EPF account, Rs.22,131/- from her pension arrear and Rs.10,000/- from her Employees’ Provident Fund. The Complainant had left the service on 31.12.2001 as per Form No. 19. The Complainant is not entitled for monthly pension of Rs.800/- and she is eligible for monthly pension of Rs.500/- as per terms of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. As per option availed by the Complainant, a sum of Rs.363/- and Rs.54/- has been deducted from pension towards commutation of pension and return of capital respectively. By surrendering 1/3rd , i.e., Rs.363/-, the Complainant would get Rs.18,100/- in lump sum and by way of surrendering Rs.54/-, the nominee of the Complainant would get Rs.36,300/- in the event of her death. They acted in lines with the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995. It was submitted that there is