IMPORTANT POINT
Pension fund – Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme and pension were enacted by the legislation to help the poor citizens for their livelihood and the legislation is welfare legislation for the interest, benefit of the common people of this country.

ORDER

Manojit Mandal, President—This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the respondent/complainant challenging the impugned order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/258/2018 whereby the Learned District Commission allowed the complaint case filed by the respondent/complainant.

2. The respondent/complainant instituted the said complaint case being No. CC/258/2018 against the appellants/opposite parties praying for the following reliefs:—

“(i) Give a direction upon the opposite parties for consideration of letter dated 14/08/2017 by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.70,864/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Four only) as per details given below:—

A. In respect of PPO No. WB/TLO/24445 @ Rs.1000/- pm from August ‘17 to April ‘18 i.e. 9 months Rs.10009 = Rs.9000/-

B. In respect of PPO No. WB/TLO/38051 @ Rs.814/- pm from January ‘12 to April ‘18 i.e. 76 months. Rs.81476 = Rs.61864/

Total of A & B = Rs.9000 + Rs.61864 = Rs.70864/-

(ii) Give a direction upon the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.500000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) for mental agony and harassment.

(iii) To pay an amount Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) for litigation cost.

(iv) To pass such other order or orders as your Honour may deem fit and proper.”

3. The appellants/opposite parties entered appearance in the said case and contested the case by filing written version.

4. The respondent/complainant and the appellants/respondents filed their evidences on affidavit and both sides filed questionnaires and their replies in support of their case.

5. After hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned District Commission was pleased to allow the said complaint case being No. CC/258/2018 by the order impugned which is reproduced as under:—

“that the case be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the opposite parties.

The opposite parties are directed to continue payment of pension for the first account of complainant from the month it was stopped with all arrears and not to claim any refund of the back pension already paid to the complainant.

The O.Ps are also to take steps within two months from this date for making accounts of all the money accepted by them for the second account from the complainant’s husband and refund the same to the complainant along with 6% interest per annum thereon from the date of filing of this case till repayment.”

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Learned District Commission, the appellants/opposite parties have preferred the instant appeal.

7. Learned Lawyer appearing for the appellants has argued that the Learned District Commission passed the impugned order mechanically without application of his mind.

8. He has further argued that the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission is otherwise bad in law and based on perverse finding and is liable to be set aside.

9. He has further argued that the Learned District Commission is without any basis of the foundation because of the fact that the Learned District Commission did not assign any reason for coming such conclusion which is not permissible under any law.

10. He has further argued that any order cannot be passed mechanically.

11. He has further argued that if any member drawing on pension from one establishment and claiming pension from second establishment the member has to declare previous pension details in column No. 16 of F/10D Pension Claim Form. But in this particular case the pensioner did not submit any declaration in his previous pension details.

12. He has further argued that the claim of the respondents/complainants is out and out illegal and she is not entitled to get any relief in the present complaint case. So, the appe