In a recent legal development, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Petitioner) filed two revision petitions, RP No. 2376 of 2023 and RP No. 2377 of 2023, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The petitions challenged a decision by the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (State Commission) in two appeals related to the Employees' Pension Scheme (EPS) under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner's grievances concern the pension fixation for Mr. K.K. Chellappan, the complainant, who sought a revision of the pension amount granted upon his retirement in 2004. The case raises questions about statutory pension calculations, the jurisdiction of consumer forums, and the scope of revision petitions under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Factual Background:
The complainant, Mr. K.K. Chellappan, retired from his employment as a tapper in the Isfield Estate in August 2004 after 35 years of service. As a member of the Employees' Pension Scheme (1995), he was entitled to a pension. However, upon his retirement, he was granted a pension of only Rs. 761 per month, which the complainant contended was calculated incorrectly. He sought clarification and correction of the pension amount multiple times, approaching various authorities such as the Labour Commissioner, the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) Office, and filing an RTI application. Despite these efforts, his grievances were not addressed satisfactorily.
After several unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue, the complainant approached the District Consumer Forum, which ruled in his favor in 2015, directing OP-1 (the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner) to pay the corrected pension along with interest and compensation. However, the State Commission, in 2023, dismissed one of the appeals and allowed another, leading to the filing of revision petitions by OP-1 before the NCDRC.
Legal Issues Raised:
The primary legal issue at hand revolves around the correctness of the pension amount calculated for the complainant. The petitioner argued that the State Commission erred in its interpretation of the statutory provisions related to pension calculation. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the State Commission incorrectly relied on salary slips and disregarded statutory records. The petitioner also claimed that the Commission misapplied the provisions of the EPS, particularly with regard to the calculation of past service benefits and salary limits.
On the other hand, the complainant asserted that the State Commission had correctly calculated the pension, based on the actual salary received and the number of years of service. The complainant argued that the petitioner's claims regarding breaks in service and non-contributory periods were unsubstantiated and had been rightfully rejected by the State Commission.
Key Findings and Judicial Interpretation:
In examining the revision petitions, the NCDRC noted that the scope for intervention under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is very limited. The Commission clarified that it can only interfere when there is a material irregularity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the State Commission’s findings. In this case, the NCDRC found that the State Commission had correctly interpreted the legal provisions under the Employees’ Pension Scheme and had considered the evidence appropriately.
Furthermore, the NCDRC emphasized that the petitioner’s challenge primarily concerned factual determinations, which fall outside the scope of revision petitions under Section 21(b). The revision jurisdiction is confined to situations where the lower forums have exercised their jurisdiction incorrectly or with irregularities. Since no such error was found in the State Commission’s order, the NCDRC dismissed the revision petitions.
Precedent and Legal Principles:
The NCDRC relied heavily on previous rulings to reinforce its position. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, and in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, has consistently held that the National Commission’s power to interfere in revision petitions is very limited. Interference is permissible only when there is a material error in the application of law or facts, which was not found in the present case.
In Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022, the Supreme Court underscored that revisional jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction, and thus, the NCDRC cannot re-evaluate facts or evidence in the manner of an appellate forum.
Conclusion:
In light of the facts, evidence, and applicable legal principles, the National Commission concluded that the revision petitions lacked merit. It upheld the State Commission’s order and dismissed the petitions. This case highlights the narrow scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act and the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions governing pension schemes. It also serves as a reminder that factual determinations made by lower forums are beyond the purview of the National Commission, unless there is a clear error in law or jurisdiction.
Section 21, CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - 2019
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
