KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. ELESTON ESTATE
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-10-3
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 15,2010

KRISHNANKUTTY Appellant
VERSUS
Eleston Estate Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE order dated 29.9.2008 in CC.112/07 of CDRF, Wayanadu is being assailed in this appeal by the complainant who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below.
(2.) THE complainant has approached the Forum stating that though he had handed over the necessary papers showing his year of birth as 1949 in order to receive Employees' Provident Fund Pension under the EPS, 1995, the 2nd opposite party had rejected his request on the ground that the papers were submitted after retirement of the complainant. It is his case that his date of birth is 1.6.1949 and not 1.6.1947 and that he understood about the mistake only after retirement. The further case put forth by the complainant is that though he had produced the extract of admission register issued by the headmaster where he had studied up to the 4th standard, the 1st opposite party did not take necessary steps to forward the same for enabling him to get the Employees' Provident Fund Pension. Alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to correct the date of birth of the complainant in all the entries and to include him in the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 and cost of the proceedings.
(3.) THE 1st opposite party in his version contended that the year of birth stated by the complainant while joining in his Estate was 1947 and it is recorded in the nomination form executed by the complainant. It was also submitted that the complainant had signed the nomination form and change in the date of birth was brought to his notice only after superannuation of the complainant. The 1st opposite party had further submitted that only an extract of the school register had been produced andno birth certificate was produced by the complainant. Contending that there was no deficiency or lapse on the part of the 1st opposite party he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. The 2nd opposite party in their version contended that an application for change in the date of birth after retirement of the complainant could not be entertained and it was also stated that in the nomination form the complainant's year of birth was 1947. It is their further case that the provisions and existing laws did not permit them to entertain the request of the complainant and hence they also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.