DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

PRESENT: THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.           : PRESIDENT

                                         TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,         : MEMBER-I

                                         THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

C.C. No.04/2022

  DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 15^TH   DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

G.Mariamma

W/o.Mr.Venkatesan

No:3/24, 2^nd Floor,

Vathiyarkandhapillai Street,

Choolai,

Chennai-600 112

                                                                                                                                                                                                …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1. Mrs.Radhika Rani

W/o Not known

The Branch Manager

Canara Bank, Vepery Branch

No.136, A.P.Road, Choolai,

Chennai-600 112

2. The Deputy General Manager

Canara Bank, Circle Office,

No:524, Annasalai Eynampet,

Chennai-600 018.

3.The General Manager

Canara Bank

Head Office

No.112, JC Road

Bengaluru Karnataka-560 002.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                  : M/s.X.Selvam Sounder and others

Counsel for  opposite parties            : M/s.J.Srinivasan and others

ORDER

TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E., MEMBER-I

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to directing the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant as damages for financial loss, mental agony and due to the deficient service of the 1^st opposite party and to pay cost of the complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The  Complainant submits that the complainant is a retired Railway Employee, senior citizen aged 74 years and southern railway pensioner. The complainant submits that she is the savings bank account holder at M/s.Canara Bank, Vepery branch, Chennai and her SB account number is 0943101017313. The complainant’s monthly pension to the tune of Rs.15,144/- will be credited on 28^th date of every month. The complainant submits that in the year 2005 she fell in sick and suffering from acute paralysis diseases and bedridden, and unable to move and walk on her own for the past 16 years. If she need to go outside she should go in a safe ambulance or car. The complainant submits that the Government of India Ministry of Finance issued a Government Guideline vide official memorandum dated 01.12.2009 and RBI, DGBA vide letter No:DGBA.GAD.No.H-3194/45.01.001/2009-10 dated 14.10.2009 facilitating the sick patient to withdraw the pension money through her authorized representative as per the government guideline. The complainant younger daughter only looking after the complainant for the past 16 years and also assisted her to visit the bank to withdraw the complainant’s pension for sometimes till 2014. The complainant submits that by considering the complainant’s old age, poor health condition and incapability has deputed a bank official to come to the complainant’s house and assisted her to operate her pension account such as to withdraw the pension money regularly, after that the 1^st opposite party assuming charges without considering the complainant’s old age, poor health condition, incapability and without following the above government guideline, the 1^st opposite party is instructed the complainant to come to the bank in person to withdraw her pension money. After the recent corona pandemic the complainant is in desperate  situation due to pathetic poor health condition. The complainant submits that during the month of July 1^st opposite party did not allowed to withdraw and holds the complainant’s pension money regarding the issue the complainant younger daughter represented the same to the 1^st opposite party along with necessary documents requested 1^st opposite party to help the complainant to withdraw the pension and operate complainant’s pension account . But the 1^st opposite party without considering the complainant’s old age and poor health condition again insisted the complainant to come to the bank in person such as to withdraw the pension money and operate the account. The 1^st opposite party on behalf of the complainant requested to allow the complainant to operate as per the Government Guideline vide official memorandum dated 01.12.2009 and RBI, DGBA vide letter No:DGBA.GAD.No.H-3194/45.01.001/2009-10 dated 14.10.2009. But the 1^st opposite party had wantonly neglected the complainant’s request and did not allow to the complainant to withdraw her pension money through her representative for the 2month  inspite of repeated request and remainders. The complainant submits that on 15.08.2021 the complainant had sent a representation to the 2^nd opposite party, on 24.08.2021 requested to the 2^nd opposite party has replied with stating that the complainant was forward to the 1^st opposite party as the issue pertaining to the branch/1^st opposite party for doing the needful. On 04.09.2021 the complainant’s younger daughter approached the 1^st opposite party to permit the complainant to operate and withdraw the pension money but the 1^st opposite party deliberately denied to facilitate as per the Government Guideline. The complainant was taken to the bank through a rented car and after that only 1^st opposite party allowed the complainant to withdraw her pension money. The act of the 1^st opposite party is amount to a clear case of deficiency in service due the act of the 1^st opposite party the complainant has sustained mental tension and agony financial loss to the tune of Rs.32,000/- and hence the complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTYADOPTED BY OPPOSITE PARTIES 2 AND 3  IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite  party denies all the allegations and averments made by the complainant in the above complaint, The opposite party submits that she is working as branch manager of Canara Bank and as far as the complainant is concerned the 1^st opposite party is disposing her duty as the Branch manager of Canara Bank and not in her individual capacity. The opposite parties in due compliance with office memorandum of Government of India, ministry of finance vide RBI ref.No. RBI, DGBA vide letter No:DGBA.GAD.No.H-3194/45.01.001/2009-10 dated 14.10.2009 had permitted the complainant pensioner to receive the pension amount from her SB Account through her authorized representative i.e., her younger daughter and also by identifying her thumb impression by deputing one of the official of the OP’s Bank to her house. The opposite parties all along for more than 15 years, have been assisting the complainant to receive the pension amount in her SB Account then and there regularly, even after the 1^st opposite party assuming office also she was obliging the same earlier procedure followed in disbursing the pension amount from her SB Account. Even in pandemic the opposite parties have visited the complainant’s home to ensure that her monthly pension amount is duly received. Hence it is totally false and misleading on the part of the complainant to state that the 1^st opposite party after assuming charges instructed the complainant to come to the Bank in person to withdraw her pension money. The statement of accounts filed herewith will itself show the bonafide of the opposite party is disbursing the pension amount. It is totally false on the party of the complainant to state that the 1^st opposite party during the month of July did not allow the complainant to withdraw and holds the complainant’s pension money. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that the complainant on 05.07.2021, had visited the opposite party bank along with her younger daughter and received the ATM card No.6082 2109 4301 2610, by affixing her thumb impression as acknowledgement. At that time it was informed by the complainant and her younger daughter that they will receive the pension amount through the ATM card received by them in the name of the complainant and thereafter neither the complainant nor her younger daughter approached the bank for withdrawal of the pension amount. The complainant had also drawn a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 05.07.2021 by cash in the SB Account. After 05.07.2021 neither the complainant nor her younger daughter had approached the officials of the Bank with respect to withdrawal of funds in SB Account, but contrarily they have chosen to send a bald representation to the 2^nd opposite party on 15.08.2021. The complainant is admittedly holding an ATM Card and further the complainant had not filed any single piece of evidence for the representation made by her to the opposite party bank, vepery branch prior to 15.08.2021. The complainant was also holding a valid ATM card to encash the funds available in her SB Account right from 05.07.2021 onwards, it is the bounden duty of the both the complainant and her younger daughter to make necessary requests to the Bank officials to visit her. The complainant after receiving the ATM Card never approached and requested the Bank officials to visit her home and all along the opposite party bank is of the impression that the complainant is drawing the pension through her ATM Card. The opposite party never insisted the complainant to come to the Bank on 04.09.2021 but the complainant alone after receiving her ATM card on 05.07.2021, had not made proper and sufficient representation to the opposite party bank with respect to withdrawal of money till 04.09.202. The Complainant in no part of the complaint had categorized the deficiency or negligence of service on the part of the opposite parties, to claim compensation from the opposite parties as contemplated under the provisions of consumer protection Act. The 1^st opposite party is not liable to pay any amount of damage much less the sum of Rs.5lakhs as claimed by the complainant. Therefore the complainant had not made out a case for claiming any damages from the 1^st opposite party and the above complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.Points for Considerations

1.Whether there is Deficiency of Service on the part of 1st opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2.Whether the complaint is entitled for any compensation as alleged in the complaint?If so, to what extent?

Point No.1

        As per complaint, the complainant being a retired Railway Employee holds a Savings Bank Account with the 1st opposite party branch under SB A/C No.0943101317313. The complainant states that the complainant’s monthly pension to the tune of RS.15,144/- month was credited to this account on 28th day of every month. The complainant also stated that she fell sick in 2005 and suffered due to acute Paralysis and was bedridden due to which she was superannuated under medical grounds. It has been further stated by the complainant that she was unable to move and walk on her own for past 16 years. Hence, whenever she wanted to withdraw money from her pension she had to hire a car or ambulance to reach the opposite party's for banking on her account.

          It is alleged by the complainant that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance issued Guidelines vide Official Memorandum dated      and RBI,DGBA GAD.No.H- 3194/6/45.01.001/2009-10 dated 14-10-2009 that all physically challenged and retired people need to be assisted by the bank employee in handling the bank transactions. While so , the complainant was assisted by her younger daughter in withdrawing pension till 2014 who was a destitute woman living with 3 adolescent children.

The complainant had further stated that earlier, considering the complainant’s old-age , and health condition the 1st opposite party deputed a Bank official to visit the complainant’s house to assist her to operate her Pension Account for withdrawal of money. The complainant had averred that after the 1st opposite party took charge, the complainant was made to come to the bank in person to withdraw her pension once in 3 month. The complainant also averred that inspite of the complainant’s worsening health condition after Covid Pandemic and inspite of several representations by the complainant’s daughter the 1st opposite party had not allowed the complainant’s daughter to withdraw through her representative for the 2 month (July and August of 2021) inspite of repeated requests. The complainant also submits that when represented her grievance on 15-08-2021, the 2nd opposite party replied on 24-08-2021 that the issue was forwarded to the 1st opposite party to do the needful. It is further alleged that the complainant’s 2nd daughter approached the 1st opposite party on 04-09-2021 for withdrawal of money but was prevented by the 1st opposite party and hence the complainant had to arrive at the bank vide a rented car for banking transactions and hence preventing the complainant from operating her account through her representative is alleged as Deficiency of service by the complainant and hence filed this complaint.

          On the other hand, the opposite parties have defended the complaint, that the complaint was filed on the 1st opposite party as individual capacity but  the 1st opposite party alleged that she had disposed  work as a Branch Manager of the bank and not in her individual capacity. The 1st opposite party admits that the complainant was drawing pension from the 1st opposite party bank account vide AC no.094310107313.The 1st opposite party further submit that the opposite parties in due compliance with the Office Memorandum of Government of India ,Ministry of Finance vide RBI Ref.No.DGBA.GADNo.H-3194/45-01-001/2009-2010 dated 14-10-2009 had permitted the complainant’s representative to receive pension payment from her account through her authorized representative .ie. her younger daughter after suitable identification of the Thumb Impression by deputing an official for the same for past 15 years. The 1st opposite party further submit that the same procedure was followed even after the 1st opposite party took charge in 07-09-2020 and also during the Covid Pandemic the opposite parties visited the complainant’s house and disbursed her monthly pension. And hence denied the fact that the 1st opposite party insisted the complainant to visit the branch once in 3 months to withdraw her pension .The opposite parties deny that they did not allow the complaint to withdraw pension amount from the bank for the 2 months especially july and august 2021 which is proved by the statement of accounts which reads that the complainant had withdrawn a cash on 05-07-2021 when the complainant visited the 1st opposite party bank along with her younger daughter and received ATM card vide 6082 4301 2610 by affixing thumb impression and during that time also the complainant and her younger daughter were informed that they could withdraw pension from the ATM card issued. Subsequently neither the complainant nor her daughter visit the bank after receiving the ATM card on 05-07-2021 but had chosen to write a representation  to the 2nd and 3rd opposite party on 15-08-2021 .Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          Perused Documents and averments, the undisputed facts of the complaint are that the complainant being a retired central government employee held a SB account with 1st opposite party bank from 2005 and she had been receiving pensions with the help of the bank officials and also her younger daughter had made withdrawal of the pension amount every month by appearing in the 1st opposite party bank and hence there is no dispute that the complaint had been withdrawing cash from 1st opposite party bank every other month and the same is evident in the complainant’s bank statement which is marked in ExB1. Dispute arose after and when the complainant received her ATM card for the aforesaid SB account when she appeared in person on 05-07-2021 as found in ExB2. The complainant has represented to the 1st opposite party to duly authorize her younger daughter to withdraw cash from her account. Since the 1st opposite party had insisted the complainant to withdraw cash from the pension account once in three months and the Complainant .The same has been raised as a grievance to the 1st opposite party by letter dated 13-08-2021 as found in ExA2 and the same grievance was represented to the 2nd opposite party also on 15-08-2021 as found in ExA4 and the 2nd opposite party had forwarded the same to the 1st opposite party for further clarification as found in ExA5. However, From ExB1 its pertinent  to note that the complainant had received the ATM card on 05-07-2021 and from ExB2 it is observed that the complainant had neither withdrawn her pension from the 1st opposite party bank for the said 2 months July and August 2021 nor has chosen to use her ATM Card to withdraw her pension but the complainant had withdrawn cash from 1st opposite party bank and alleged that she travelled by call taxi to the bank on 05-09-2021 and subsequently withdrawn money through ATM on 12-09-2021 for the first time though she had received the ATM card on 05-07-2021 as found in ExB2 that being so the complainant with a help of her younger daughter could have used the ATM for withdrawing money in July and August 2021 but instant she has sent a representation on 13.08.2021 to the 1^st opposite party and 15.08.2021 to the 2^nd opposite party by stating that she has been prevented from withdrawing her pension by the 1^st opposite party. In both Exhibits A2 and A4 as well as in the complaint the complainant has suppressed the fact of receipt of ATM Card on 05.07.2021 from the 1^st opposite party which shows that the complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands. Though it is alleged by the complainant that the 1^st opposite party did not allowed the complainant to withdraw her pension in July and August 2021 there is no proof for the same. Though in proof affidavit filed by the complainant it is alleged that the ATM Card was not activated by the 1^st opposite party and she was not given guidance to operate the ATM Card such a contention is found to be an after thought to overcome the defence taken by the opposite party in the written version. On perusal of the records filed by both the parties it is found that the 1^st opposite party has been acting as per the Government guideline and as per the reserve bank of India (RBI) Ref.No.DGBA.GADNo.H-3194/45-01-001/2009-2010 dated 14-10-2009 by assisting the pensioner to withdraw her pension and contention of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party wantonly acted against the said circular and thereby prevented the complainant from withdrawing her pension for July and August 2021 is found to be a false one and without any proof further the complainant failed to prove the financial loss caused to her to the tune of Rs.32,000/- as stated in the complaint. The complainant as not mentioned or shown any personal enmity between her and 1^st opposite party. Hence it is found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party as alleged in the complaint. Point No.1 answered accordingly.

Point No.2

Based on the findings given to the PointNo.1,since there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party, the complainant is not entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service from the opposite party. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No Cost

Dictated  by the Member-I to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 15^th day of  December 2023

MEMBER – I              MEMBER-II                         PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

MEMBER – I              MEMBER-II                         PRESIDENT