Delhi

East Delhi

CC/290/2018

VAIJANTIMALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

18 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 290/18

 

1. Smt. Vaijantimala

W/o Late Shri Dharam Singh

House No. 58, Gali No. 4

Arya Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Shri Mukesh Kumar

S/o Late Shri Dharam Singh

House No. 58, Gali No. 4

Arya Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                      ….Complainants

 

Vs.

 

1. Central Bank of India

Branch at 25/4, Karkardooma Gaon

Karkardooma, Delhi – 110 092

Thourgh its Chief/Branch Manager

 

2. Shri Manmohan Singh

Branch Manager – Central Bank of India

25/4, Karkardooma Gaon

Karkardooma, Delhi – 110 092

Thourgh its Chief/Branch Manager                                   …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 07.09.2018

Date of Order: 26.09.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

ORDER

            This complaint has been filed by Smt. Vaijantimala alongwith her son Mr. Mukesh Kumar, co-complainant, against Central Bank of India (OP-1) and Shri Manmohan Singh, Branch Manager (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service. 

            When the complaint came up for hearing on 18.09.2018, time was sought by the complainant to get the corrections made in the complaint which were pointed out and he also sought time to file the documents.  He has filed the present complaint.  Thus, the facts stated in the later complaint are taken up. 

            It has been stated in the complaint that Central Bank of India (OP-1) has been maintaining the saving account no. 1100991646 of complainant Smt. Vaijantimala in which family pension of Shri Dharam Singh was credited as per orders of Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India.  Mr. Dharam Singh superannuated on 31.10.2000 and his pension was released from 01.11.2000.  Shri Dharam Singh expired on 03.10.2004 and the family pension commenced in the name of his widow Smt. Vaijantimala (complainant-1) which was credited in the bank account maintained with Central Bank of India (OP-2). 

            In the month of November, 2014, Shri Manmohan Singh, Branch Manager of Central Bank of India (OP-2) refused to release the money to Smt. Vaijantimala despite visits and letters/notices.  Shri Manmohan Singh refused to release any amount from the saving account of the complainant on 07.11.2014.  It has been stated that family pension was stopped illegally and without any authority by Central Bank of India.  On enquiry by         Smt. Vaijantimala, she has been informed by the Branch Manager that the payment was not received from parent office.  

            It has further been stated that after stopping the release of any amount in November 2014 onwards, bank has informed on 02.12.2015 that OP bank has paid payment of pension wrongly and was not paying pension as the recovery of excess amount paid has to be recovered. 

            The complainant has further stated that no recovery from the pension can be made.  Thus, she has prayed for directions to OPs to release the amount of Rs. 1,61,577/- (Rs 125,763 + 35814) alongwith 18% interest from the date of recovery; to pay compensation and medical expenses of Rs. 17,50,000/- as Smt. Vaijantimala (complaiant-1) had got paralytic attack due to illegal act of OPs and Rs. 50,000/- cost of litigation.    

            With the main prayer, she has also made interim prayer for direction to Central Bank of India (OP-1) to stop illegal recovery for the period October 2007 onwards being time barred and not recoverable from the family pension as per government rules from the amount of family pension of the complainant to condone the delay, if any.          

 

Heard on admission. 

            On hearing on admission, two questions cropped up.  The first whether an interim relief can be given to the complainant and secondly, whether the complainant was a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act. 

            On these two points, Ld. Counsel for complainant have argued that this Forum has jurisdiction to pass an interim order.  He has made reference to Section 13 (3B) of the Act.  Secondly, he has stated that the complainant was a consumer as her family pension account was maintained in the Central Bank of India (OP). 

            For having answer to his first argument, reference is to be made to Section 13(3B) of the Act which is extracted hereunder:

Section 13(3B): Where during the pendency of any proceeding before the District Forum, it appears to it necessary, it may pass such interim order as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

            This provision empowers a Forum to pass an interim order as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case if it appears that it was necessary to do so.  This order has to be passed during the pendency of any proceeding.  Pendency of any proceeding is a sine-qua-non for passing such an interim order. 

            Thus, from the bare reading of this provision, it is evident that the forum has power to pass an interim order depending upon the facts of the case, but this interim order has to be passed if the proceedings have been pending.

            In the present case, the case of the complaint has been at the admission stage.  When the case has been at the admission stage, it cannot be said that there has been pendency of any proceeding before the district forum.  Thus, the argument advanced on behalf of the complaint have no force.  Therefore, no interim order can be passed in her complaint. 

            Coming to the second limb of arguments, it is the case of the complainant that Central Bank of India where her family pension account has been maintained, they have not released the family pension which she was receiving on the death of Shri Dharam Singh, her husband.  The law is well settled that a government servant does not fall under the definition of a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.  For this, reference is made to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in             Dr. Jagmittar Singh Bhagat vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana, AIR 2913 SC 3060, where it has been laid down that

            “By no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forums under the Act.  The government servant does not fall under the defintion of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.  Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with the service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose.  The appropriate forum, the redressal of any grievance, may be State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act”.

            In the present case, the complaint of the complainants has been in respect of family pension of Shri Dharam Singh, deceased, who was a government servant.  The complainant has been claiming the retiral benefits of her husband.  When Shri Dharam Singh, deceased, could not have claimed retiral benefits under the Consumer Protection Act being not a consumer, the question of complainant Smt. Vaijantimala, her wife, to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act does not arise. 

            By maintaining the pension account in the Central Bank of India  (OP-1), the complainants cannot be said to be falling under the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as they are claiming the retiral benefits of a government servant who is said to be not covered under the definition of “consumer” as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Dr. Jagmittar Singh Bhagat (supra).   Thus, there is no force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the complainants that complainants have been consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainants are not “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Therefore, the complaint cannot be admitted and the same is rejected.  There is no order as to cost. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President