IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdictional error - Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this 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.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Provident Fund Organisation”), Opposite Party challenging the Order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.565 of 2013. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Provident Fund Organisation by affirming the Order dated 11.07.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 178/2010 whereby, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Provident Fund Organisation to pay Rs.905/- as monthly pension to the Complainants with arrears alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of payment together with cost of Rs.1500/-.

2. The wife of the Respondent No.1 has moved an Application bearing IA No.9024 / 2022, seeking permission to implead legal heirs of Sathyadevan, Respondent No.1, i.e., Nalini (wife), Shylaja (daughter) and Satheesh (son) as necessary parties in the matter since the Respondent No.1 has expired and Death Certificate of Sathyadevan Respondent No.1 has been filed alongwith the Application. For the reasons stated in IA No.9024 / 2022, Application is allowed and the Legal Heirs of Sathyadevan, Respondent No.1 are hereby impleaded as Respondents in the instant case.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was working as a cashew worker on monthly wage basis in M/s. Raj Kumar Impex, Kareepra w.e.f. 01.06.1996 and retired from the service on 20.04.2008, i.e., after completing a service of 11 years 10 months and 19 days which as per rules was to be rounded to 12 years. He was contributing to Pension Fund for all the 12 years. His non-contributory service was 184 days only and accordingly his pensionable service is 11 years. The last pay drawn of the Complainant was Rs.4288.88 but as per PPO issued by the Organisation his last pay was Rs.3900/-. It is the case of the Complainant that although he is eligible for monthly pension of Rs.674/- yet the Opposite Party sanctioned him monthly pension of Rs.167/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Provident Fund Organisation, the Complainant preferred a Complaint before the District Commission.

4. Upon notice, by filing its Written Version, the Provident Fund Organisation contested the Complaint on the ground that the as per record, the Complainant had joined the Pension Fund on 01.06.1996 and his date of birth was 21.04.1950. Therefore, his date of completion of 58 years was on 20.04.2008. The Complainant had a pensionable service of only 3 years 8 days from 01.01.1996 to 20.04.2008. But he had a non-contributory period of 8 years 10 months and 1 day of break. Hence, his pensionable service was rounded to 3 years. The Opposite Party filed additional affidavit stating that the revised pension of the Complainant was Rs.226/- after taking into account his average wages as Rs.5277/-. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on their part and it was prayed that the Consumer Complaint be dismissed.

5. On analysis of the evidence adduced by the Parties before it, the District Forum partly allowed the Complaint by observing as under:—

“........The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has only a pensionable service of 3 years 8 days which is rounded to 3 year. The balance is break. According to the complainant the above contention of the opposite party is incorrect and illegal. The complainant worked continuously throughout his service and paid contribution promptly. No amount of contributions was due to be paid. Pensionable service as per 10 (1) of EPS, 95 is the service of the complainant in which contributions received. Pensionable service