Karnataka

Chamrajnagar

CC/01/2012

Mahadevaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.J.S.

29 May 2012

ORDER

ORDER

 

1. The complainant Mahadevaiah had filed the complaint against the O.P.  alleging deficiency of service. He died during the pendency of the complaint and his legal heirs have been brought on record.

 

1. The complainant’s case in brief are that Mahadevaiah was a savings bank account  holder with O.P. and was receiving pension through O.P. Late Mahadevaiah was a retired railway employee.

 

1. The Central Government had fixed the medical allowance of Rs.100/- p.m.  till 2008  and after 2008 the medical allowance was enhanced to Rs.300/- p.m.

 

1. The O.P. was to deduct the commutation portion of Rs.179/- from 01/05/1994 to 31/05/2009 or  to the date of death of the pensioner, which ever is earlier.

 

1. The O.P. was to do the service rendered  by the Central Government. As per Central Government order  the medical  allowance was  payable to the complainant at the rate of Rs.100/- till 30/08/2008 and after 01/09/2008  it was raised to Rs.300/-. This amount was not been adjusted to the complainant’s pension. The O.P. was deducting commutation even after 31/05/2009.

 

1. The complainant Mahadevaiah gave number of requisitions to the O.P. but the O.P. has not cared in spite of giving the requisitions. The complainant has suffered monitory loss, mental agony an account of negligence act of the O.P.

 

1. The complainant has sustained monitory loss of Rs.30,600/-only (129X100, 40X300, 30X179). The complainant has also suffered  mental agony  and  is entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

 

1. The O.P. has admitted that the complainant Mahadevaiah was  a retired government employee. He had claimed medical allowance of Rs.300/- p.a. from the year 2008 but he has not followed the railway procedure.

 

1. The railway employee should have given a letter or declaration in the prescribed format stating that he is  residing  at a distance of 2.5K.M. from the railway hospital and not getting railway facilities as out patient. The complainant has not followed the procedure.

 

1. The complaint as brought by the complainant is liable to be dismissed as the deceased has not followed the procedure  in filing the complaint.

 

1. The following points arises for consideration.
   1. Whether  the complainant has made out  deficiency of service by the O.P.?
   2. To what order the parties are entitled?

 

1. The findings for the above points are that

Point No.1: Affirmative.

Point No.2: As per order

 

REASONS

1. POINT NO.1:- The complainant in his complaint has alleged two deficiency  of services by the O.P. and has stated that it has resulted in loss of Rs.30,600/- to him.

 

1. The complainant Mahadevaiah was the  savings bank account holder of O.P. and  was receiving  pension through O.P.

 

1. The complainant retired as railway employee. The O.P. deducted commutation  pension of Rs.179/- p.m. from the pension of the complainant. The O.P. was to deduct Rs.179/- from 01/06/1994 to 31/05/2009 or to the death of the pension which ever is earlier.

 

1. The complainant has stated that the pension payment order says that the portion of the commutation was to deducted till 31/05/2009 but the O.P. has deducted the commutation portion  even after that. The complainant gave number of requisitions to the O.P. and  in spite of it had not stopped  deduction of commutation portion.

 

1. The O.P. in the version has stated that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or facts.

 

1. Mahadevaiah had filed the complaint  and  died during the pendency of the complaint and  his legal heirs have been brought on record. The right has accrued  to the LRs and the complaint is maintainable in law.

 

1. Except the above objections the O.P. has not taken any objections regarding the deficiency of service towards deduction of commutation by it even after 31/05/2009.

 

1. The complainant apart from filing the affidavit  for which he has sated the O.P. has not stopped the recovery  of   commutation even after  31/05/2009  has produced letter dated 22/06/2009 given to the O.P. where in he has requested the O.P. not to deduct the  commutation portion from 01/06/2009. The O.P. has  not replied  to the said letter nor  has it  stated that it has right to deduct commutation portion of  pension till the death of Mahadevaiah or till any other date.

 

1. The pension payment  order discloses that the commutation pension should have  stopped after 31/05/2009, the O.P. has not done so  and  therefore there is deficiency of service by the O.P.

 

1. The other deficiency  which has been alleged by the complainant is that medical allowance has not been credited to his account till 30/08/2008 at Rs.100/- p.m. and Rs.300/- p.m. from 01/09/2008 by the O.P. inspite of requests and letters by him. The O.P. has stated that complainant Mahadevaiah has not given declaration  stating that he is residing at a distance of 2.5 km  from railway hospital and or not getting railway hospital  facility and therefore the O.P. has not credited the medical allowance to his account.

 

1. The complainant has produced letters written by him dt.22/07/2010 and 16/12/2011 requesting the O.P. to credit medical allowance to his account. These letters have not been replied by the O.P. The complainant has also produced another Office Memorandum dt.17/04/2000, which shows that any pensioner who is not getting service of   any CGHS dispensary or railway hospital has to give declaration  that he is not utilizing the facility  in order to entitle for Rs.100/-p.m. as medical allowance.

 

1. The complainant has produced notification R.B.E. 65/99 which says that in case of the existing pensioner, the pension disbursing authority shall obtain the  option and the undertaking in the form place at Annexure-I. Based on these, the Pension Disbursing Authority shall authorize payment of Medical Allowance @ 100/- per month, The fact whether the pensioner/family pensioner  has opted for Medical Allowance or not shall be prominently endorsed  by the Pension Disbursing Authority on both  halves of the PPO. In otherwords,  the pension disbursing authority  on appropriate  endorsement on the PPO irrespective of  whether the pensioner/family pensioner opts for the benefit of Medical Allowance or not. The payment of Medical allowance shall be made to the pensioner by the pension disbursing authority along with pension/family pension on monthly basis.

 

1. It becomes clear  from the above that the Pension disbursing authority has to obtain the notification and do the needful.

 

1. The next question is who is the pension disbursing authority. The complainant has produced the basics for pensioners and masters of the circulars to show that the O.P. is the pension disbursing authority. Part-III  deals with basics for pensioners. Section-1-Pension Disbursement shows  that All PPOs  and any subsequent amendments issued by pay & accounts officers are routed to the disbursing bank through Central Pension Accounting office, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. These are in turn transmitted by the link branch of the designated bank to the disbursing branch. The PAO and the bank authorities are required to ensure that the pensioner is kept informed about the movement of the PPo at all stages.

 

1. In case of  railway pensioner, on receipt of documents, the paying branch shall immediately  address the pensioner through a letter advising him to appear at the branch along with  the documents for the purpose of identification.

 

1. The complainant has also produced master circulars/  disbursing of the pension by agency banks. It says that the Ministry of railways has designated of F.A. & C.A.Os of 07 new  zones   to accept / settle pension debits  in respect of pension payment disbursed  to railway pensioners by  authorized banks with effect from 01/04/2006.

 

1. It becomes clear from the basics for pensioners, pension disbursing authority would be the bank from where the pensioner draws his pension. In the present case the O.P.  is the pension disbursing authority, so for as complainant Mahadevaiah was concerned. It also becomes clear from the circular produced by the complainant,  it was for the pension disbursing authority to obtain necessary letters or declaration from the pensioners  and the pensioners was to give a letter or declaration as directed by the Pension disbursing authority  namely O.P. In the present  case the O.P. has not asked the complainant Mahadevaiah to give declaration  as required under circular nor replied to  letters of Mahadevaiah addressed  to the bank. The O.P. has not even cared to reply to the letters given by the complainant Mahadevaiah requesting to credit medical allowance which he was entitled   nor   O.P.  has asked to give declaration as required  under the circular.  This shows that not crediting of medical allowance is due to deficiency of service by O.P. only and  there was no deficiency of service on the part of  deceased Mahadevaiah in not giving such declaration. As stated earlier  at the repetition  it was for the O.P. under the basics of pensioners  and circulars produced by pensioner Mahadevaiah in order to credit the medical allowance  after giving declaration. The O.P. in spite of requests to it through two letters requesting to credit medical allowance, has not replied to deceased Mahadevaiah to give undertaking. This shows that there is deficiency of service by O.P.

 

1. POINT NO.2:- The complainant has claimed Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony by stating that it has resulted due to non paying of medical allowance  and also commutation of pension towards the commutation portion. The non crediting of medical allowance nor stopping of commutation portion by the O.P. cannot be said to have driven the  complainant to have mental agony in order to award compensation. Hence, the complainant is entitled not entitled for compensation towards mental agony as claimed by him.

 

1. In view of the above following

 

ORDER

The complaint is allowed.

1. The complainants are entitled for Rs.30,600/- being the wrong deduction of commutation portion of Rs.179/- and  also non-crediting of medical allowance towards Late Mahadevaiah at Rs.100/-  and Rs.300/- respectively.
2. The complainants are also entitled for Rs.5,000/- being the litigation expenses.
3. The O.P. shall pay the amount Rs.30,600/-  within 30 days from today, failing of which the O.P. shall pay 6% p.a. interest Rs.30,600/-.