For Complainant : Sri B. V. Ramana, A/R & associates
For OP No.1 : Sri K. N. Samantaray, Advocate.
For OP No.2 : Sri Rabindra Ku. Panda, Advocate.
1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that her husband was an employee under OFDC Ltd. and was allowed to retire on superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2001. The husband of the complainant was getting pension from OP.1 till his death on 10.07.2003. It is submitted that after the death of her husband, the complainant was getting family pension w.e.f. 11.07.2003 @ Rs.450/- per month till 31.12.2012 by way of crediting the pension to her SB accounts with OP.1 but from Jan-13 onwards her pension has been stopped by the Ops. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to release the pension from Jan-13 and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
2. The OP No.1 filed counter contending that the monthly pension @ Rs.450/- in respect of the complainant has been sent up to 12/2012 to the OP.2 for crediting the same to the SB accounts of the complainant and after that the pension has not been released by OP.1 due to non receipt of life certificate. It is further contended that every year in the month of November, the pensioner is to submit life certificate before the concerned bank in order to get pension regularly but the OP.1 is yet to receive the life certificate of the complainant for which the monthly pension is not released from January, 2013. The OP.1 has prayed the Forum to direct the complainant to submit life certificate for eventual release of pension and arrear. Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The OP No.2 filed counter admitting the SB accounts of the complainant with them but categorically contended that non receipt of pension by the complainant is the affair between the complainant and OP No.1 and the bank has nothing to do with it. The OP contended that soon after release of pension by OP.1, the OP.2 is duty bound to credit the same to the accounts of the pensioner but in the present case, the dispute is in between the complainant and the OP.1 and the bank has not committed any deficiency in service. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
4. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of her case. We heard from the OPs through their respective authorized A/Rs, in absence of the complainant and perused the materials on record.
5. In this case the complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops for non release of family pension w.e.f. 01.01.2013. The case of the complainant is that the Ops without any intimation have stopped her family pension. The OP No.1 stated that due to non submission of life certificate, the pension of the complainant could not be released and the OP will release the pension along with arrears soon after submission of life certificate by the complainant through her bank. It is seen from the record that the complainant has submitted the life certificate and the OP.1 has released pension arrears from 01.01.2013 to 31.05.2017 for an amount of Rs.42, 000/- and a sum of Rs.1000/- towards pension for June, 2017 vide newly generated PPO No. OR/BAM/18600 in favour of the complainant. The amount also has been credited to the SB accounts of the complainant.
6. From the above facts and circumstances, it is seen that due to fault on the part of the complainant her pension could not be released by OP.1 and OP.2 has no role to play in this matter as a banker. After submission of life certificate through OP.2, her pension along with arrear has been released and thus the complainant has no grievance against the Ops. The Ops have also committed no deficiency in service in this case as we found. Hence this case of the complainant needs dismissal since dispute in between them is over.
7. In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
(to dict.)
