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 31.01.2015 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 462 of 2013. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Provident Fund Organisation by affirming the Order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 144/2010 whereby, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Provident Fund Organisation to pay monthly pension of Rs.492/- from 01.03.1996. The Organisation was also directed to pay arrears amount alongwith interest @6% p.a. from 01.03.1996 till the date of payment together cost of Rs.1500/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant worked at Sastha Enterprises, a cashew factory, w.e.f. 01.03.1974 to 1996. She joined as member of Employees Provident Fund on 01.03.1974 and her PF Account No. being KR/2965/725. She fell ill and despite taking treatment continuously in Ayurvedic department she was not fully recovered and hence applied for pension in 2009. Despite having past service for a period of 22 years, she was not granted pension by the Provident Fund Organisation on the ground that there is 16 ½ years of service break in service. 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 as per the break certificate issued by the employer, the Complainant has put in 16 years 6 months of non-contributory past service and hence she has rendered only 5 years two months and 14 days of eligible service out of the total past service of 21 years 8 months and 14 days from 01.03.1974 to 15.11.1995. For making the entire past service of 22 years as eligible contributory service the Complainant was directed to remit Rs.12,454/- towards pension fund for the non-contributory period of past service but she did not deposit the same. She opted for reduced pension and filed Form No. 10 Application. The minimum period to get pension is 10 years but in this case the Complainant has only 5 years 2 months and 14 days eligible service, therefore, she is not entitled for any pension. It was submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.

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

“...It is admitted that the complainant was a cashew worker having account number KR/2526/725 and she has joined as EPF member on 1/3/1974 and she left service on 10/2/1996. The form No. 10 application submitted by the complainant was returned by opposite party for regularizing the break of service of 16 years and 6 months. According to the complainant, she is having past service for a period of 22 years and also no amount is to be paid for regularizing the break of service of 16 years and 6 months. Opposite party directed the complainant to remit Rs.12454 in form No.10 for regularizing the break of service. According to the opposite party the complainant has rendered only 5 years 2 months and 14 days of eligible service.Since the Complainant has only 5 years 2 months and 14 days of eligible service, she is not entitled to get pension. There is no dispute that the complainant entered into family pension fund scheme in 1/3/1974 and left service on 10/2/1996. Ext.D2 also that the complainant worked in all the 22 years. The method of calculation of pensionable service adopted by the