Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (Legal) Employees Provident Fund Organization v. M.A. Varghese; A.G. Unni; B. Chandramony; T.C. Joy; N. Raveendranathan; K. Govindan Nair; Syamaprasad

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV ``` ``` WEDNESDAY,THE13[TH]DAYOFMARCH2024/23RDPHALGUNA,1945 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.9596OF2024 ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` THEREGIONALPROVIDENTFUNDCOMMISSIONER-II(LEGAL) EMPLOYEESPROVIDENTFUNDORGANIZATION,REGIONALOFFICE, 36/685/A,BHAVISHYANIDHIBHAVAN,KALOOR,KOCHI., PIN-682017 ``` ## **`BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL`** ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` M.A.VARGHESE ``` ``` S/OLATEM.K.ANTONY,MALIAKAL,LBSRRA, NEARPONELCHURCH,PONEKKARAP.,KOCHI, PIN-682041 ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 13.03.2024,ALONGWITHWP(C).9627/2024,9643/2024ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V`** ``` WEDNESDAY,THE13[TH]DAYOFMARCH2024/23RDPHALGUNA,1945 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.9627OF2024 ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` THEREGIONALPROVIDENTFUNDCOMMISSIONER-II(LEGAL) EMPLOYEESPROVIDENTFUNDORGANIZATION,REGIONALOFFICE, 36/685/A,BHAVISHYANIDHIBHAVAN,KALOOR,KOCHI.,PIN- 682017 ``` ## **`BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL`** ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` A.G.UNNI SIVAMVALIYAVEETTILHOUSE,THAMARAMKULANGARA, THRIPUNITHURAP.O,KOCHI,PIN-682301 ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 13.03.2024,ALONGWITHWP(C).9596/2024ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THECOURT ONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V`** ``` WEDNESDAY,THE13[TH]DAYOFMARCH2024/23RDPHALGUNA,1945 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.9643OF2024 ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` THEREGIONALPROVIDENTFUNDCOMMISSIONER-II(LEGAL) EMPLOYEESPROVIDENTFUNDORGANIZATION,REGIONALOFFICE, 36/685/A,BHAVISHYANIDHIBHAVAN,KALOOR,KOCHI.,PIN- 682017 ``` ## **`BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL`** ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` B.CHANDRAMONY W/ON.A.SYAMAPRASAD,SYAMNIVAS,KOOTHAPILLYLANE,LBS CROSSROAD,EDAPILLYP.O.,KOCHI,PIN-682024 ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 13.03.2024,ALONGWITHWP(C).9596/2024ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THECOURT ONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V`** ``` WEDNESDAY,THE13[TH]DAYOFMARCH2024/23RDPHALGUNA,1945 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.9692OF2024 ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` THEREGIONALPROVIDENTFUNDCOMMISSIONER-II(LEGAL) EMPLOYEESPROVIDENTFUNDORGANIZATION,REGIONALOFFICE, 36/685/A,BHAVISHYANIDHIBHAVAN,KALOOR,KOCHI.,PIN- 682917 ``` ## **`BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL`** ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` T.C.JOY S/OCHEKKU,THYPARAMBILHOUSE,ELOORFERRY ROAD,UDYOGAMANDALP.O.ELOOR,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT.,PIN- 683501 ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 13.03.2024,ALONGWITHWP(C).9596/2024ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THECOURT ONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V`** ``` WEDNESDAY,THE13[TH]DAYOFMARCH2024/23RDPHALGUNA,1945 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.9764OF2024 ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` THEREGIONALPROVIDENTFUNDCOMMISSIONER-II(LEGAL) EMPLOYEESPROVIDENTFUNDORGANIZATION,REGIONALOFFICE, 36/685/A,BHAVISHYANIDHIBHAVAN,KALOOR,KOCHI.,PIN- 682017 ``` ## **`BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL`** ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ## **`N. RAVEENDRANATHAN`** ``` S/OKNARAYANAMENON,VYSAKHHOUSE,NO.379,WARDNO.20, PALLIPARAMBUKAVUROAD,VYRELILNAGAR,TRIPUNITHURA., PIN-682301 ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 13.03.2024,ALONGWITHWP(C).9596/2024ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THECOURT ONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V`** ``` WEDNESDAY,THE13[TH]DAYOFMARCH2024/23RDPHALGUNA,1945 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.9827OF2024 ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` THEREGIONALPROVIDENTFUNDCOMMISSIONER-II(LEGAL) EMPLOYEESPROVIDENTFUNDORGANIZATION,REGIONALOFFICE, 36/685/A,BHAVISHYANIDHIBHAVAN,KALOOR,KOCHI.,PIN- 682017 ``` ## **`BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL`** ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` K.GOVINDANNAIR S/OG.KUNJANPILLAI,CHAPPAYILHOUSE,NEARSNV(SKT) HSS,NANTHIATTUKUNNAM,NORTHPARUR.,PIN-683513 ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 13.03.2024,ALONGWITHWP(C).9596/2024ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THECOURT ONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V`** ``` WEDNESDAY,THE13[TH]DAYOFMARCH2024/23RDPHALGUNA,1945 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.9877OF2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` THEREGIONALPROVIDENTFUNDCOMMISSIONER-II(LEGAL) EMPLOYEESPROVIDENTFUNDORGANIZATION,REGIONALOFFICE, 36/685/A,BHAVISHYANIDHIBHAVAN,KALOOR,KOCHI.,PIN- 682017 ``` ## **`BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL`** ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ## **`SYAMAPRASAD`** ``` S/OLATEVELUKUTTYMENON,SYAMNIVAS,KOOTHAPILLYLANE, EDAPILLYP.O.,KOCHI.,PIN-682024 ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 13.03.2024,ALONGWITHWP(C).9596/2024ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THECOURT ONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, as confirmed by the State Commission. Though the matter was taken up in revision before the National Commission, the challenge was repelled. 2. Short facts that led to the filing of these writ petitions by the party respondents are under:- a) For the sake of ease and clarity, the party respondents shall be referred to as the complainant, and the petitioner herein shall be referred to as the EPFO. b) The complainants were all employees of the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited and were covered under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. They contended before the Commission that the contributions were being made by them as well as their employee under the provisions of the Scheme. According to them, as per the provisions of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (‘Pension Scheme, 1971’, for the sake of brevity), limited pension coverage was granted to the spouse and the minor children of the subscriber in the event of death while in service. They contended that, as the Government found that the scheme was inadequate, the Employees Pension Scheme,1995 was ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF20249 ``` introduced by the Government with effect from 16.11.1995. The complainant in the respective scheme were included in the said scheme, and contributions made by them under the former scheme were all transferred to EPF Scheme, 1995. c) They contended that though they have retired from service on various dates, they were not granted the benefits to which they were entitled to under the law. According to them, in terms of Para 10(2) of the Pension Scheme, 1995, they were entitled to be granted a weightage of two years over and above the pensionable service as they had more than 20 years of service. Their prayer was for the issuance of directions to the EPFO to calculate their pension afresh in accordance with Para 12(4)(a) and (b) read with Para 10(2) of the Pension Scheme, 1995. They also contended that they were not granted the past minimum service benefit while fixing their monthly pension. In one of the cases, it was contended that, in those cases where an incumbent retired without attaining superannuation, only 6% could be deducted from their pension amount, however, in clear violation of the provisions, 9% was deducted. Accordingly, they claimed that they were entitled to payment of arrears of the pension together with interest. 3. The respondent EPFO entered appearance and filed a counter, contending that the claim was barred by limitation as the claim was lodged after the lapse of almost 12 years. It was contended that the EPF Scheme, 1995 had come into force with effect from 16.11.1995, replacing the earlier Family Pension Scheme of 1971, and as the complainants had exercised their option under the ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 10 ``` EPF Scheme, 1995, if they had any grievance, they ought to have lodged their complaint within two years from the date on which they have superannuated. They also contended that the complainants were not entitled to get the minimum past service of Rs. 800/- under paragraphs 12(3)(a) of the EPF Act, 1995. It was contended that there was no irregularity in the quantification of the payment of monthly pensions to the complainants. It was also contended in the counter affidavit that weightage could be granted only if a member has rendered 20 years of service or both after the joining of the Pension Scheme, 1995. 4. Before the Forum, both sides were permitted to give evidence. No oral evidence was adduced by both sides. The relevant records were produced and marked. 5. The District Forum, after evaluation of the entire materials rejected the contention of the EPFO that the complaint was barred by limitation. In so far as the weightage of two years, it was found that lying on the law laid down by the National Commission in **Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shri. Malikarjun Devandrappa Verapur** [W.P No. 62021/2011 dated 19.11.2012], which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.30844/2010, that they were entitled to the weightage of two years in terms of Para 10 (2) of the Scheme. 6. The EPFO took the matter and preferred an appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and filed separate appeals. The ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF202411 ``` Commission, after elaborately considering the matter and re-appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the District Forum was in order. The State Commission held that the EPFO, being the authority entrusted with the duty of implementing the pension scheme, ought to have accepted the common order of the District Forum gracefully and to have implemented the directions expeditiously instead of prolonging the agony of the persons whose funds were retained by the EPFO in trust. Holding so, the cost was quantified and fixed as Rs. 5,000/- and appeals were dismissed. 7. Challenging the findings of the State Commission, the matter was taken up by the EPFO before the National Commission. 8. The National Commission dealt with the matter in elaborate detail and also relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhavani** [AIR 2008 SC 2957] and came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission, confirming the order passed by the State Commission. Holding so, the Revision Petition was dismissed. 9. It is challenging the findings above that these writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that in so far as the first relief granted by the State ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF202412 ``` Commission is concerned, which was the grant of weightage of 2 years to the pensionable service to all complainants as per paragraph 12(4)(a) and (b) and Para 10(2) of Pension Scheme, 1995, is concerned, the EPFO had filed an additional statement before the District Forum contending that the Organization was not against the grant of said relief. It is submitted by the learned counsel that his grievance mainly centers around relief No. 2 granted by the District Forum, as per which, the District Forum has directed the opposite party to allow the minimum past service benefit to the various complainants by fixing the amount. The learned counsel would refer to paragraph No. 12 of the order passed by the District Forum, and it is submitted that what the District Forum had directed was to issue directions to the opposite party to verify and to re-compute the pension amount granting the minimum past service benefit to all the eligible complainants and that being the case, the quantum of amount ought not have been fixed. He would point out that there is no prescribed minimum for the past service benefit, and the same has been arrived at based on a table under para 12(3)(a) and (b) of the EPF Scheme of 1995. The counsel submits that though this aspect of the matter was highlighted before the State Commission as well as the National Commission, none of these aspects were considered in the proper manner. In so far as the order rendered by the National Commission is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the National Commission did not enter into the merits of the matter and merely upheld the order passed by the District Forum as confirmed by the State Forum. ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 13 ``` 11. I have considered the submissions advanced and have carefully perused the records. 12. The foremost contention advanced by the learned counsel centers around relief No. 2 granted by the District Forum as upheld by the higher forum. One of the issues raised before the District Forum was whether the complainants were entitled to get the minimum past service as provided under Paragraph No. 12(3) of the EPF, 1995. The District Forum took note of the fact, that the grievance of the complainants was that the EPFO had given a lesser amount towards minimum past service benefit of Rs.800/- per mensem in terms of Paragraph 12(3) of EPF Scheme, 1995. On facts and on the basis of evidence, the District Forum only directed the opposite party to allow the minimum past service at a lower sum of Rs. 550/- per mensem to the complainant in C.C.No.74/2017, Rs.800/- per mensem to the complainant in C.C.No.826/2015 and Rs.600/- per mensem to the other five complainants. In the facts and circumstances, I do not think that grant of minimum past service at a rate which is less than Rs.800/- per mensem is a reason warranting interference in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. I find that the State Forum, after appreciating the contentions raised before the State Commission to observe as follows: The District Forum has considered the issues correctly and in the proper perspective. We bear in mind the fact that, the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 is a ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF202414 ``` beneficial legislation intended to provide some relief to the employees of the covered establishments in their old age. The fund is constituted with contributions made by employers and employees. The Pension Scheme is intended to help employees in their old age when they become weak, infirm, and afflicted with various ailments. The respondents who have appeared before us in person are all aged and in distress. The appellant, being the authority entrusted with the duty of implementing the Pension Scheme, ought to have accepted the common order of the District Forum gracefully and given effect to the directions expeditiously. Instead, they have been pursuing these appeals, adding to the agony and miseries of the respondents and continuing to deny the legitimate benefits due to them. Without having the wherewithal to engage a lawyer, they have been appearing in person in these appeals. Therefore, they are entitled to the costs of this litigation, which is fixed at Rs.5,000/in the case of each of the respondents. In the result, all the above appeals are dismissed with costs quantified and fixed at Rs.5,000/- in respect of each respondent. The common order of the District Forum is confirmed. 14. The Commission considered the plight of the complainants, who were elderly, ill, and distressed. They appeared in person before the State Commission to support the order issued by the District Forum. After appreciating the facts and the arguments advanced, the Commission has held that the EPFO was unsuccessfully prolonging the pensioners' suffering. It was holding so that costs were imposed. ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 15 ``` 15. Before this Court, the petitioner's grievance primarily concerns Condition No. 2 of the order issued by the District Commission and upheld by the State Forum. I find that the District Forum has taken note of the observations made by the Apex Court as well as the provisions of the Scheme and the Act and has issued directions in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. The Forum has clearly concluded that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, and the manner in which the amounts were calculated under paragraph 12(3) of the Scheme was not in order. This finding has been confined by the State Commission and the National Commission. ## 16. In **Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital** [(2000) 7 SCC 668], the Apex Court recognized the Consumer Protection Act as a benevolent legislation aimed at safeguarding consumers from exploitation. It establishes an alternative system for consumer justice through summary trial. The authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers to resolve consumer disputes, emphasizing the importance of reasoned conclusions. The necessity for these bodies to support their decisions with reasons, however brief, promotes transparency and reduces the risk of arbitrariness, allowing higher forums to assess the validity of these reasons. When quantifying damages, consumer forums strive to serve justice, ensuring compensation not only remedies the individual's grievance but also ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF202416 ``` promotes a positive shift in the service provider's behavior. While there is no universal guideline for determining compensation, the order passed by the Forum, as confirmed by the superior Commissions, is well-supported by valid and persuasive reasons. 17. After appreciating the entire facts, and considering the conclusions drawn by the Commission, I hold that all relevant facts and legal aspects were clearly considered by the Forum while taking a decision. I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any error or perversity in the order passed by the Forum as confirmed by the Commission, resulting in any injustice or a flagrant violation of the law. As it is settled that this Court does not act as an appellate body over the Commission's decisions, I find no reason to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. sd/- ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** ``` DCS ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 17 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9596/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHECOMPLAINTNO.78/2017FILED BYTHERESPONDENTBEFORETHECDRF,KOCHIDATED NIL ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHEVERSIONFILEDBYTHE PETITIONERINC.C.NO.78/2017 ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEORDEROFTHECONSUMER DISPUTEREDRESSALFORUM,ERNAKULAMDATED 23-06-2018INC.C.NO.78/2017 ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFTHECOMMONJUDGMENTPASSEDBY THEKERALASTATECONSUMERDISPUTEREDRESSAL COMMISSIONINAPPEALNO.643/2018DATED 22-09-2020ANDCONNECTEDCASES ExhibitP5TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED29-11-2023OF THENATIONALCONSUMERREDRESSALCOMMISSION, NEWDELHIINREVISIONPETITIONNO.1048/2021 ANDCONNECTEDCASES ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 18 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9627/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` ExhibitP1 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFTHECOMPLAINTNO.74/2017FILED BYTHERESPONDENTBEFORETHECDRFDATEDNIL ``` ``` ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHEVERSIONFILEDBYTHE PETITIONERINC.C.NO.74/2017 ``` ``` ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEORDEROFTHECONSUMER DISPUTEREDRESSALFORUM,ERNAKULAMDATED 23-06-2018INC.C.NO.74/2017 ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFTHECOMMONJUDGMENTPASSEDBY THEKERALASTATECONSUMERDISPUTEREDRESSAL COMMISSIONINAPPEALNO.640/2018DATED 22-09-2020ANDCONNECTEDCASES ExhibitP5TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED29-11-2023OF THENATIONALCONSUMERREDRESSALCOMMISSION, NEWDELHIINREVISIONPETITIONNO.1045/2021 ANDCONNECTEDCASES ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 19 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9643/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHECOMPLAINTNO.77/2017FILED BYTHERESPONDENTBEFORETHECDRF,KOCHIDATED NIL ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHEVERSIONFILEDBYTHE PETITIONERINC.C.NO.77/2017 ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEORDEROFTHECONSUMER DISPUTEREDRESSALFORUM,ERNAKULAMDATED 23-06-2018INC.C.NO.77/2017 ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFTHECOMMONJUDGMENTPASSEDBY THEKERALASTATECONSUMERDISPUTEREDRESSAL COMMISSIONINAPPEALNO.638/2018DATED 22-09-2020ANDCONNECTEDCASES ExhibitP5TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED29-11-2023OF THENATIONALCONSUMERREDRESSALCOMMISSION, NEWDELHIINREVISIONPETITIONNO.1043/2021 ANDCONNECTEDCASES ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 20 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9692/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHECOMPLAINTNO.829/2015FILED BYTHERESPONDENTBEFORETHECDRF,KOCHI ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHEVERSIONFILEDBYTHE PETITIONERINC.C.NO.829/2015 ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEORDEROFTHECONSUMER DISPUTEREDRESSALFORUM,ERNAKULAMDATED 23-06-2018INC.C.NO.829/2015 ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFTHECOMMONJUDGMENTPASSEDBY THEKERALASTATECONSUMERDISPUTEREDRESSAL COMMISSIONINAPPEALNO.641/2018DATED 22-09-2020ANDCONNECTEDCASES ExhibitP5TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED29-11-2023OF THENATIONALCONSUMERDISPUTEREDRESSAL COMMISSION,NEWDELHIINREVISIONPETITION NO.1046/2021ANDCONNECTEDCASES ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 21 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9764/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHECOMPLAINTNO.826/2015FILED BYTHERESPONDENTBEFORETHECDRFDATEDNIL ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHEVERSIONFILEDBYTHE PETITIONERINC.C.NO.826/2015 ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEORDEROFTHECONSUMER DISPUTEREDRESSALFORUM,ERNAKULAMDATED 23-06-2018INC.C.NO.826/2015 ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFTHECOMMONJUDGMENTPASSEDBY THEKERALASTATECONSUMERDISPUTEREDRESSAL COMMISSIONINAPPEALNO.637/2018DATED 22-09-2020ANDCONNECTEDCASES ExhibitP5TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED29-11-2023OF THENATIONALCONSUMERDISPUTEREDRESSAL COMMISSION,NEWDELHIINREVISIONPETITION NO.1042/2021ANDCONNECTEDCASES ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 22 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9827/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHECOMPLAINTNO.827/2015FILED BYTHERESPONDENTBEFORETHECDRFDATEDNIL ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHEVERSIONFILEDBYTHE PETITIONERINC.C.NO.827/2015DATED 15-02-2016. ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEORDEROFTHECDRFERNAKULAM DATED23-06-2018INC.CNO.827/2015. ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFTHECOMMONJUDGMENTPASSEDBY THEKERALASTATECONSUMERDISPUTEREDRESSAL COMMISSIONINAPPEALNO.642/2018DATED 22-09-2020ANDCONNECTEDCASES ExhibitP5TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED29-11-2023OF THENATIONALCONSUMERDISPUTEREDRESSAL COMMISSION,NEWDELHIINREVISIONPETITION NO.1047/2021ANDCONNECTEDCASES ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.9596,9627,9643,9692, 9764,9827&9877OF2024 ``` ``` 23 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9877/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHECOMPLAINTNO.76/2017FILED BYTHERESPONDENTBEFORETHECERF,KOCHIDATED NIL ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHEVERSIONFILEDBYTHE PETITIONERINC.C.NO.76/2017 ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEORDEROFTHECONSUMER DISPUTEREDRESSALFORUM,ERNAKULAMDATED 23-06-2018INC.C.NO.76/2017 ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFTHECOMMONJUDGMENTPASSEDBY THEKERALASTATECONSUMERDISPUTEREDRESSAL COMMISSIONINAPPEALNO.639/2018DATED 22-09-2020ANDCONNECTEDCASES ExhibitP5TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED29-11-2023OF THENATIONALCONSUMERREDRESSALCOMMISSION, NEWDELHIINREVISIONPETITIONNO.1044/2021 ANDCONNECTEDCASES ```