DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 12 of 2015
Date of filing: 09.01.2015 Date of disposal: 29.01.2016
Complainant: Rowshon Akhter, S/o. Hassibul Hossain, Village: Mathrum, Post Office: Mathrum, Police Station: Mongalkote, District: Burdwan, West Bengal, PIN – 713 143.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Kaichar Branch, having its office at Kaichar, PO: Kaichar, PS: Mongalkote, District: Burdwan, West Bengal, PIN – 713 143.
2. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Burdwan Main Branch, G. T. Road, West Bengal, PIN – 713 101.
3. The A.G.M. Regional Office, Union Bank of India, City Centre, Durgapur, Burdwan, West Bengal, PIN – 713 216.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Nazibul Islam.
Appeared for the Opposite Party (s): Ld. Advocate, Soham Som.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the ops as the ops did not pay him the interest component towards delay payment of the pension benefit to him.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that being ex- army personnel he has one pension account with the Union Bank of India, Kaichar Branch. The complainant was discharged from his service on 01.4.2011 (F/N) under Army Rule no. 13(3) & 11(1) on fulfilling the terms of engagement/age limit. Therefore he is entitled to get pension benefit as a disability person @40% per month for life. Thereafter the OC Record Officer Tirmulgherry, Secunderabad had forwarded original copy of service pension payment order being no. DE/011261/2011 dated 09.8.2011 in respect of this complainant to the Burdwan Branch directing to transmit the same to the payee Branch i.e. Kaichar Branch for disbursement of pension benefit to the complainant at the earliest. Duplicate of that PPO was also forwarded to the complainant for information and advice was given to continue liaison with his bank for getting pension benefit and op-1 was also requested to make payment pension amount to the complainant upon receipt of the original PPO from the main branch i.e. op-2. Upon receipt of the duplicate copy the complainant contact with the Union Bank of India, Kaichar Branch i.e. op-1 but the said branch was unable to disburse him the pension benefit as the main branch of the UBI had not transmit the original PPO to this payee Branch. On enquiry the complainant came to know that UBI main branch had missed the aforesaid original PPO. Then the complainant met with the Manager of the UBI, Main Branch and continuously requested him verbally as well as written correspondences for searching the original PPO, but he refused to do so rather behaved with him in an illegal manner. The complainant informed the matter to the op-3 through several correspondences, but no action has been taken by all the ops to expedite the matter for disbursement of his pension amount. Due to this reason the complainant had to spend his life through hardships and faced financial stringency. Ultimately after lapse of about two years, by his own effort he managed to get the duplicate PPO from PCDA (P) Allahabad, which was received by the op-1 on 23.5.2013. Thereafter on 31.5.2013 the op-1 disbursed the pension amount for a sum of Rs. 1, 54,360=00 on account of disability element with arrear from 01.4.2011 to 30.4.2013 and commutation amount for the month of May, 2013. But the complainant is entitled to get arrear pension amount along with interest for the period from September, 2011 to 31st May, 2013 as per rule. One order was passed by the Banking Ombudsmen on 12.4.2013 directing the Bank for making payment of interest for the period from January, 2013 to May, 2013, which was according to this complainant not justified because the complainant is entitled to get interest for the period from September, 2011 to May, 2013. Thereafter on 08.8.2013 the op-2 deliberately made payment of a nominal amount of Rs. 5,045=00 as per the order of the Banking Ombudsmen to the pension account of this complainant without furnishing the statement of account. The complainant has submitted that the op is bound to furnish the cause of delay for making payment of the pension amount as well as to show the process of computation, but unfortunately they are avoiding their responsibilities and kept themselves mum. Due to such non-cooperation on behalf of the ops the complainant had to approach before the ld. Forum for redressal of his grievance. By filing this complaint the complainant has prayed for direction upon the ops for making payment of arrear interest for the pension amount from 01.4.2011 to 30.5.2013 for Rs. 11,293=00, compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000=00 due to mental agony and harassment.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the OPs by filing conjoint written version contending that the aforesaid original PPO of the Complainant had not been received by the Union Bank of India, Burdwan Branch as the Nodal Branch of Union Bank of India, so unless and until the Nodal Branch of Union Bank of India has been received the PPO, it is not possible for the said authority to verify the authenticity of any order issued by the pension department (Central Government or State Government). The Complainant made correspondences with the payee branch i.e. Union Bank of India, Kaichar Branch in the month of April, 2012 and also with the Nodal Branch of Union Bank of India, Burdwan Branch on April, 2012 and from the said correspondence the bank came to know about the said PPO and thereafter said Nodal Branch and the Payee Branch enquired about the original PPO of the Complainant and after enquiry it came to the knowledge of both payee Branch and Nodal Branch that no such original PPO have yet been received by them. Thereafter the OPs take the aforesaid matter to the knowledge of the Complainant and also made correspondence with the concerned authority i.e. Office of the Principal CDA (Pension), Allahabad (Army) on several occasions requesting the concerned authority to issue the duplicate PPO as early as possible for settlement of the pension claim of the Complainant, but the concerned authority has failed to do the same and on 31.05.2013 the said office send the duplicate PPO of the Complainant. It is submitted by the OPs that upon receipt of the duplicate PPO the Bank had paid the arrear disability element and difference capitalized value in the pension account of the Complainant within a very short span. Inspite of this the Complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Before coming to this Ld. Forum the Complainant approached before the Ombudsman about this matter and the Ombudsman penalized Rs.5045/- to the Ops after considering the complaint and the OPs have already deposited the said amount in the same account of the Complainant and he had already accepted the same. Such attitude of the Complainant reveals that he has agreed with the order of the banking Ombudsman, but filed this complaint with mal-intention challenging the order of the Ombudsman, so the complaint is not maintainable before this Ld. Forum. According the OPs if there is any deficiency in service, the same lies with the PCDA (Pension) Allahabad (Army)-the concerned office, who issued and send the original PPO because there is no document in the record that the said original PPO had duly been received by the OPs. The OPs have sated as there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of them, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
The Complainant has filed evidence on affidavit along with several papers and documents in support of his contention. The Ops have filed written notes of argument with a copy to the other side. Both parties have filed some documents in support of their respective contentions.
We have carefully perused the record; papers and documents filed by the parties and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is seen by us that there are some admitted facts in the instant complaint i.e. the Complainant is an Ex-Army person, he has one pension account with the OP-1, the Complainant was discharged from the service on 01.04.2011 on fulfilling the terms of engagement/age limit, he is entitled to get pension from his department through the OP-1 being a payee branch, the Complainant received the photocopy of the original PPO on 09.08.2011, in the said PPO direction was given by the concerned authority for disbursement of the pension benefit to the Complainant, no original PPO was received either by the Nodal Branch of Union Bank of India or the photocopy by the payee Branch, Union Bank of India, Kaichar Branch, the pension benefit did not receive by the Complainant till 30.05.2013, on 31.05.2013 the payee branch made payment of the pension benefit to the Complainant along with arrear dues i.e. for the period from 01.04.2011-31.05.2013, subsequently as per written correspondences made by the OPs the concerned authority i.e. PCDA (Pension) Allahabad (Army) had send the duplicate PPO to the Nodal Branch and copy was given to the Payee Branch, due to non-payment of the pension benefit by the payee branch within due time the Complainant approached before the Banking Ombudsman, an order was passed by the Ombudsman directing the OPs for making payment of Rs.5045/- towards penalty to the Complainant, the said amount had duly been deposited by the OPs in the pension account of the Complainant, the Complainant has accepted the same. The allegation of the Complainant is that though he has already received the arrear pension benefit along with penal amount as per direction of the Banking Ombudsman, but he did not get interest on the arrear pension amount as yet, which he is entitled to get. It is submitted by the Complainant that due to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs he did not get the interest till filing of this complaint. During hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has argued that he is entitled to get interest on the arrear pension amount for the period from 01.04.2011 to 30.05.2013 as inspite of receipt of the original PPO by the Nodal Branch as well the Payee Branch in the month of August, 2011, they did not bother to disburse him the pension amount till 31.05.2013. According to the Complainant as he received the photocopy of the original PPO in the month of August, 2011, the OPs have obviously received the same and upon received either they suppressed with mal-intention or misplaced the same and due to such negligent action of the he had to suffer financial stringency and as his grievance had not been redress either by the OPs or by the Banking Ombudsman, this complaint is filed by him for getting appropriate redressal through this Ld. Forum. The rebuttal case of the OPs is that as they did not receive the original PPO from the concerned authority in the month of august, 2011, it was not possible for them to disburse the pension benefit to the Complainant and as and when the duplicate PPO is received from the concerned authority the pension benefit has been given to the Complainant along with arrear dues. It is the further case of the OPs that for issuance of duplicate PPO several written correspondences were made and at last they received the same after lapse of two years from the date of his retirement and within a very short time and without wasting any time the payee branch has disbursed the entire pension benefit. During hearing the Ld. Counsel for the OPs has mentioned that as per the order of the Banking Ombudsman the Complainant has duly received a sum of Rs.5045/- towards penalty paid by the OPs and after receipt of the said amount this complaint has been initiated by him with a view to grab some amount further through an illegal manner. The Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost being devoid of any merit.
We have noticed that there is no such documentary evidence on behalf of the Complainant to show us that the Nodal Branch received the original PPO in the month of August, 2011 and the Payee Branch received the photocopy of the same on that date. Admittedly the Complainant received a photocopy of the original PPO in the month of August, 2011 wherein it was mentioned by the concerned authority that copy was forwarded to the payee branch and Original to the Nodal Branch. But it is the fact the Nodal Branch did not receive the original PPO and the payee branch also did not receive the photocopy of the same on that date. It is true that until and unless the original PPO is received it is not possible for the said authority to verify the authenticity of any order issued by the pension department either Central Government or State Government whatever it may be. Though the Complainant approached before the Ops praying for disbursement of his pension benefit as he got the photocopy of the original PPO, but in our view as the Ops did not get the Original PPO till the from the concerned authority, they could not disburse the pension benefit to the Complainant and in our view such action as taken by the OPs cannot be termed as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The duty casts upon the concerned authority i.e. PCDA to show us that the original PPO had duly been received by the Nodal Branch and inspite of receipt the same the benefit was not disbursed illegally. But as the Complainant has not made the PDCA as a necessary party to this proceeding, the said document is not forthcoming. It is an admitted fact that either the Nodal Branch or the Payee Branch cannot make payment of any pension benefit of their own. It can act only when direction is given by the concerned department in writing where the employee worked. Actually the pension amount is given by the Government through the Bank and for this reason the bank has no authority to start the pension of an employee until it is received the original PPO from the concerned authority. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of this complaint we are of the opinion that the OPs act cannot be termed as negligent and deficient, for this reason we are constrain to impose any amount towards compensation on the shoulder of the OPs because it is seen by us that the OPs have made written correspondences with the concerned authority for issuing duplicate PPO and as and when the duplicate was received, the pension benefit along with arrear amount was disbursed by them in favour of the Complainant. So though there is delay in disbursement of the pension amount, but for such delay we cannot direct the OPs for making payment of interest on the arrear pension amount as the pension amount is not given by the bank, it is given by the Government and if the Government does not permit any interest, the Bank has no liability to make payment of the said interest to the Complainant. Therefore we do not find any laches on behalf of the OPs in providing service to the Complainant and as the Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service of the OPs by adducing cogent documentary evidence, hence the complaint fails.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is dismissed on contest. However, considering the facts and circumstances there is no order as to cost.
Let plain copies of this final order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
