Orissa

Cuttak

CC/27/2017

Smt Urmila Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

S Mohanty

12 Oct 2020

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

                                                                                    C.C. No.27/2017

                                Smt. Urmila Nayak,

                                W/O: Late Basant Kumar Nayak,

At:Birakisohorepur,PO:Athagarh,

Dist:Cuttack-754029.                                                                             … Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

 

1.        Branch Manager,Bank of India,

       Gopalpur Branch,At:Press Chowk,

PO:Madhupatna,Cuttack-753010.

 

2.        Superintendent of Post Offices,

                                Cuttack South Division,Cuttack-753001.                                       … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     01.03.2017

Date of Order:   12.10.2020

 

For the complainant:          Mr. Sibananda Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1:                         None.

For Opp.Party no.2:            Mr. P.K.Padhi,Adv. & Associates.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

                The complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum against the O.Ps for Redressal of his grievances U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 in terms of the prayer made in the complaint petition alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that the husband of the complainant was appointed as Postman on 2.6.1975 and in course of service by virtue of department examination he was promoted to Postal Assistant cadre on 23.9.1980 and while working as such the husband of complainant applied for bank loan amounting to Rs.1,77,940/- in 2004 and the same was sanctioned on 19.3.2004.  The husband of the complainant had availed the aforesaid loan from the O.P No.1 in 2004 for repairing of house after super cyclone and Rs.3990/- was recovered from June 2004 till April,2009 with four breaks i.e. April to June,2005, September and October,2005, January and February 2006 and August,2006 and for the rest period from June,2004 to April 2009 in 50 installments amounting to Rs.1,90,590/- was recovered from the salary of complainant’s husband and he retired from service in 30^th June,2009.  The husband of the complainant expired on 5.11.2009.  Copy of the death certificate of complainant’s husband is annexed as Annexure-1.  As no benefit was given to the complainant for the death of her husband, the complainant approached Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal,Cuttack and the Death-cum-Retirement gratuity amounting to Rs.1,35,929/- was sanctioned by the O.P No.2 but the said amount was directly paid to O.P No.1 towards Bank loan and the entire amount was taken by O.P.1 towards the bank loan in December,2010.  Further the son of the complainant was directed to deposit Rs.3,472/- on 28.2.2011 and Rs.518/- was deducted from the account of complainant’s late husband and thus the O.P.2 received aRs.3,30,480/- as on 28.2.2011 as against the loan of Rs.1,77,940/- taken on 19.3.2004.  The complainant sought information under R.T.I  Act from O.P.1 to which O.P.1 replied that the total amount credited by postal department i.e. O.P.2 to bank i.e. O.P.1 is Rs.2,63,214/- and they were satisfied with that amount and the complainant’s husband had paid rs.3,30,480/- (Rs.1,90,590 + Rs.1,35,900 + Rs.3,472 + Rs.518/-) and thus excess amount of  Rs.67,266/- was paid to O.P.1 through O.P.2.  Copy of the reply obtained under R.T.I Act dt.26./3.2011 supplied by the O.P.1 is annexed as Annexure-2.  The response given by O.P.2 was that the department has recovered Rs.1,90,590/- from the salary of complainant’s husband from June,2004 to April,2009.  Copy of the R.T.I reply obtained from O.P.2 dt.21.7.2011 is attached as Annexure-3.  After so many correspondences with O.P.1, Rs.27,000/- was refunded to the complainant on 19.1.2012 and Rs.5,432/- was credited on 21.1.2012 for which the complainant was asked to open a new account with the bank of O.P.1 and she was asked to sign a Santusti Patra(satisfaction letter).  But the complainant was not satisfied with the amount refunded as she has to get back at least more than Rs.67,000/- + interest as on that amount from the date of deposit till date of payment.  Copy of the bank pass book in which the amount has been deposited and the letter of O.P.1 dt.20.1.2012 and 13.2.2012 regarding this issue are attached as Annexure-4,5 & 6.
2. O.P.1 neither appeared nor filed written version.  The OI.P No.2 appeared through its advocate and filed written version.O.P.2 in written version has submitted that the complainant does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act,1986 and hence has no locus-standi to initiate the present proceeding U/S-12 of C.P.Act..  The O.P.2 has further stated that the husband of the complainant late Basanta Kumar Nayak was appointed as postman since 26.5.1975 and subsequently he was promoted to the cadre of Postal assistant from 23.9.1980.  While working as Posotal Assistant,Narasinghpur, he defalcated government money as a result of which he was awarded with the punishment of “compulsory retirement from service”.  Later he preferred an appeal to the Chief Postmaster General,Odisha Circle,Bhubaneswar on 11.3.2002 and the said punishment was modified to the extent of reduction of pay to the minimum stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 5 years from the date of his reinstatement and he was reinstated into service on 7.6.2002.  After reinstatement, the husband of the complainant again committed fraud in different savings bank and recurring deposit accounts to a tune of Rs.1,88,108/- while he was working as Sub-Postmaster,Athagarh Bazar S.O.  Hence the husband of the complainant was proceeded against Under Rule-14 of CSC(CCA) Rules,1965.  He retired on superannuation from service on 30.6.2009 and the said inquiry was converted into Rule-9 CCS(Pension) Rules,1972.  After the death of the husband of the petitioner, action was taken to drop the Rule-9 proceedings and the provisional pension,G,.P.F, DCRG have been released in favour of the complainant .  Late Basanta Kumar Nayak had availed a loan from Bank of India,Gopalpur Branch,Cuttack during 2004 which was recovered from the pay of the deceased Sri Basanta Kumar Nayak starting from June,2004 to April,2009 and paid to the bank concerned.  O.P.2 has further stated that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Postman on 26.5.1975 as stated by the complainant in the complaint petition and the husband of the complainant was an employee of O.P.2 and not a consumer.  The total amount recovered for the monthly installments of bank loan from the pay of the husband of the complainant from June,2004 to  April,2009, excluding the month of April,2005,Januar,2006,February,2006,Augusut,2006 is Rs.1,93,590/- and not Rs.1,90,590/- as mentioned in the para-2 of the complaint petition.  Copy of the bank loan recovery schedule is attached as Annexure-R/I.  An amount of Rs.1,35,929/- was sanctioned vide SPOS,Cuttack South Division Memo NO.C1-05/08-09 dt.2.12.2010 towards the payment of gratuity with an instruction to adjust the outstanding bank loan if any at the time of payment to the complainant.  It was intimated by the Bank of India,Gopalpur Branch vide letter no.GOP:DPM dt.20.12.2010 that an amount of Rs.1,37,895/- is outstanding against the bank loan and requested to remit the same to BOI in shape of cheque/DD and at the time of payment of gratuity to complainant on 5.1.2011 the payable gratuity amount was recovered and remitted to BOI,Gopalpur Branch with the knowledge of the complainant.  The bank intimation regarding outstanding loan amount is attached as Annexure-R/2.  The averments made in para-4 of the complaint are denied by O.P.2.  The total amount recovered from the pay of the deceased official was inadvertently mentioned as Rs.1,90,590/- in the complaint petition instead of Rs.1,93,590/-.  As per column no.11 of the R.T.I replay dt.21.7.2011, the total amount reflected as recovered amount of Rs.,12,000/- for the period from 9.2006 to 1.2007 instead of Rs.15,000/-.  Copy of the R.T.I reply dt.21.7.2011 is attached as Annexure-R/3.  An amount of Rs.1,35,929/- was sanctioned vide SPDS,Cuttack South Division memo No.C1-05/08-09 dt.2.12.2010 towards gratuity which was paid to the complainant on 5.1.2011.  Hence, the complaint is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
3. We have heard from the parties at length, perused the papers and documents filed by the respective parties and went through the pleadings.

Admittedly the husband of the complainant, who was serving under the Postal Department availed loan from O.P.1 in 2004 and repaid the loan by installments.He retired on 30.6.2009 and expired on 5.11.2009 as well as his retiral dues were sanctioned by O.P No.2 but it was paid to O.P No.1 but without the knowledge and consent of the complainant who is the legal heirs of the deceased employee.Besides that the son of the complainant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.3472/- and Rs.518/- and it was deducted from the complainant’s account.The O.P No.1 Bank in their RTI reply vide Annexure-2 has disclosed that Rs.2,63,214/- was paid to the bank by Department of Post and the Bank refunded Rs.27,000/- to the complainant being the excess installment deposited(Annexure-5).

During course of argument, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the O.P No.2 has neither taken the permission of the complainant or any legal heir of her deceased husband nor intimated her anything about the payment of sanctioned retiral dues of her husband to the O.P No.1.The amount was paid to O.P No.1 without any calculation and the excess amount has been paid, which was partly refunded by O.P No.1 as evident from Aannexure-5.He further argued that while the O.P No.1 has disclosed to have received Rs.2,63,214/- the O.P NO.2 has stated to have paid Rs.1,90,590/-(Annexure-2).

Per contra the counsel for the O.P No.2 contended that an amount of Rs.1,35,929/- only was sanctioned on 2.12.2010 towards payment of Gratuity with instruction to adjust the outstanding bank loan and it was intimated by the Bank of India that an amount of Rs.1,37,895/- is outstanding against the bank loan.Accordingly the amount was remitted to Bank of India for adjustment with full knowledge of complainant.

After hearing rival submissions, we are of the considered view that the O.P No.2 has remitted the sanctioned gratuity amount without verifying the fact about the outstanding against the bank loan and also has not produced any document to the effect that the amount was remitted with full knowledge of the complainant which amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.Apart from that the bank (O.P.1) has refunded some excess amount received by it and as the O.P No.1 not controverted the averments of the complainant with regard to excess amount, so we are constrained to accept the averments and submissions made by the complainant.So the O.Ps are liable for the deficiency in service.

                                                                                ORDER

Under facts and circumstances, the complainant succeeds and O.Ps are jointly and severally liable for the same and directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.40,000/-(forty thousand) and compensation of Rs.25,000/-(twenty-five thousand) towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/(ten thousand) towards cost of litigation.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 12^th   day of October,2020  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

  ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                            Member (W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                (Sri D.C.Barik)

 President.