1.         The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 24.04.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 81/2019 in which order dated 30.11.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 954/2016 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the orders passed by both the Fora below i.e. the District Forum and the State Commission.

2.         The Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Parties (OPs) were Respondents before the State Commission in FA/81/2019 and OPs before the District Forum in Complaint No. 954/2016.

3.         Notice was issued to the Respondents on 04.08.2022.  Parties filed Written Arguments on 20.11.2023 (Petitioner), 27.11.2023 (Respondent No.1) and Respondent No.2 (05.04.2024) respectively. 

4.         Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -

The complainant was commissioned in the Indian Army as Emergency Commission Officer (ECO) in the rank of Second Lieutenant (2^nd Lt) on 13.10.1963 during the emergency of Chinese Aggression.  He also took part in Pak war of 1965.  Service conditions were governed by Special Army Instructions (SAI) 9/S/74.  After the emergency, the complainant and certain others about 400 ECOs and Short Service (SS) Officers were granted NCC permanent commission, on the recommendations of a Screening Board which was approved by the Ministry of Defence.  A special cadre of NCC Commissioned Officers known as NCC Whole Time Officers (WTOs) was created.  The officers, just like regular Armed Forces Officers, in NCC took active part in adventure activities viz para-sailing, trekking. Para-trooping, live-ammunition training, live-ammunition firing etc.  These officers were also designated as regular armed forces officers like Lt., Capt., Major, Lt.Col. like-wise and equivalent in Navy and Air Force.  Pay and allowances and other concessions were also admissible just like regular armed forces officers, Rank Pay, at par with regular armed forces officers was also admissible. The officers were given all the facilities like medical facilities in Military Hospitals and canteen facilities, all at par with regular officers.  The complainant and other similarly situated NCC Commissioned officers were paid from the Defence Estimates and were governed by Special Army Instructions 9/S/1974.  Complainant joined this cadre on 11.07.1968 after release from Army and retired in the rank of Lt. Col. on 31.10.1994.  At the time of retirement the applicant was drawing Rs.5,000/- as Basic Pay and Rs.800/- PM as Rank Pay.  The NCC Commissioned Officers were governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, they were paid pension from the Defence estimates at par with the officers of Army/Navy/Air Force.  On implementation of the 4^th and 5^th Central Pay Commission recommendations also, they were paid salary at par with the regular defence officers.  The Complainant was drawing the pension of Lt. Col. In the 6^th CPC, the rank of Lt. Col. was recommended to be put in Pay Band 3, which recommendation was turned down by the Government.  The office of the Prime Minister decided to place the rank of Lt. Col. in Pay Band-4.  The Ministry of Defence issued letter dated 21.05.2009 stating that the pay structure of the rank of Lt. Col. in the Army (other than MNS Officers) and equivalent rank in Navy and Air Force was further revised and placed in the Pay Band-4 (i.e. Rs.37,400-67,000) with Grade Pay of Rs.8,000/- and MSP of Rs.6,000/-.  The complainant was being disbursed the pension of Lt. Col. but much less than regular defence officers.  The applicant has been pursuing the matter with Pension Disbursing Bank OP-1.  Till 29.01.2016, the complainant was disbursed Rs.57,521/- per month, when all of a sudden the pension was reduced to Rs.37,027/- per month without any reason or notice to the complainant. On 29.07.2016, there was an outstanding credit amount of Rs.8,26,928/60 in the account of the applicant/complainant.  On 01.08.2016 an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was debited from the account. The cheques issued by the complainant  were not honoured. On visit to the Bank personally, the complainant submitted an application on 15.07.2016 for seeking clarification.  A legal notice dated 15.09.2016 was served upon the OP-1 that being a service provider, had committed an act of omission and commission which amount to deficiency of service and called upon to reverse the entry of Rs.8.00 lacs.   OP-1 replied to the Legal Notice stating that Complainant was never informed about any recovery nor any copy of the order in the form of corrigendum to PPO was issued or handed over by OP-1 or for that matter by OP-2. Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

5.         Vide Order dated 30.11.2018, in the CC No. 954/2016 the District Forum dismissed the complaint. 

6.         Aggrieved by the said Order dated 30.11.2018 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 25.04.2019 dismissed the Appeal No. 81/2019.

7.         Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 25.04.2019 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i)        The order passed by the District Forum is cryptic and non-speaking order based on conjectures and surmises by completely ignoring and overlooking the factual matric of the case. There is a total non-application of judicial mind on the part of District Forum as it has taken the averments made by the respondents to be the gospel truth but has failed to consider the factual matrix of the case that the petitioner was able to establish on record that the conduct of Respondent-1 was absolutely illegal.  There is absolutely no overpayment or excess payment of pension amount to the petitioner rather has been disbursed the reduced pension.

(ii)       The District Forum failed to appreciate the illegal repeated acts of Respondent-1/Bank of dishonouring the cheques despite of sufficient credit balance in the account.  No order from any competent authority is placed on record to freeze the account of the petitioner.  Even copy of the notice informing about freezing of account of the Petitioner is not placed on record. 

(iii)      The District Forum erred in returning the finding that Respondent-1 has done no mischief but only complied with the directions issued by Respondent-2 and deducted Rs. 8.00 lacs from the account of Petitioner and paid it by DD to Respondent-2. District Forum failed to appreciate that no order has been placed on record to arrive at this conclusion.   The Respondent No 2, itself does not have any power to order recovery of any over-payment of pension as to how it can be assumed to have passed such an order to Respondent-1 to affect recovery or to freeze the account of the Petitioner. Finding based on the above referred conjectures and surmises, District Forum has come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service and complaint is without merit and hence is dismissed.

(iv) That evidence tendered by way of affidavits by the petitioner/ respondent and exhibits placed on record are not discussed in the impugned order showing thereby that the conclusions arrived at by the Forum below are solely based assumptions and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(v) The impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside and the complaint is liable to be allowed as prayed for.

8.         Heard counsels for the Respondents.  Petitioner had sent an e-mail stating that matter may be decided based on written arguments submitted by him. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced by the Respondents during the hearing, are summed up below.

8.1       In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 7), the petitioner submitted in his written arguments that the Petitioner has a S/B A/c with Respondent-1 Bank, through which drawing his defence pension since 01.11.1994.  Respondent-1 is the Pension Disbursing Agency (PDA) and Respondent -2 is pension payment/accounting Authority (PAO.  Based on PPO or any corrigendum thereto, issued by Respondent No.2, the Respondent-1 disburses the pension. Till 29.01.2016, the petitioner was being disbursed Rs.57,521/- per month and suddenly, the pension was reduced to Rs.37,027/- per month without any reason or any notice to the Petitioner.  On 29.07.2016, there was credit balance amount of Rs.8,26,958.60 in the account.  On 01.08.2016 an amount of Rs.8.00 Lakhs was debited from the account without any authority from account holder or without intimating any reason for that.  Three cheques dated 30.05.2016, dated 20.07.2016 and dated 05.09.2016 issued by the Petitioner were dis-honoured despite of having sufficient credit balance in the account. Hence, filed complaint praying for direction to (i) OP-1 to stop dis-honouring the cheques issued by the complainant (ii) to refund the illegally debited amount of Rs.8.00 Lakhs with interest @12% pa, (iii) OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for mental & Physical harassment and inconvenience caused.  It is also submitted that there was no outstanding statutory demand from the Petitioner by any competent authority.  Apprehensions are misplaced and misconceived because from the pensions like petitioner there are laid down procedures for affecting recovery, if ordered by competent authority.  There was no instruction from any competent authority to freeze the account of the petitioner nor any notice to that effect was ever served upon the petitioner.  Issuance of cheques to discharge the legal liabilities is not a fraudulent transaction.  No documents had been placed on record by the Bank to show its right to keep the clearance of cheques issued by the petitioner in abeyance/or dis-honour cheques.  The issue of deficiency of service raised before the District Forum was of debiting Rs.8.00 Lakhs from the account of the Petitioner without the concurrence of the petitioner from his account and relief claimed was to refund the illegally debited amount with interest @12% p.a. with monthly rests.  It is submitted that the relief claimed from Ld. CAT and relief granted is totally different from the one claimed in CC/954/2016 and even if, there is any misconceived overlapping in claim, or otherwise; firstly, the remedy before the Consumer Forum is an additional remedy (Section 3 of the Act) and secondly, the relief granted in the Judgment/Order passed by CAT, Chandigarh Bench, makes the things absolutely clear. Regulation 95 of the Pension Regulation for the Army-2008 provides for overpayment due to an error in law, including those due to misinterpretation of regulations and orders, shall not be recovered, but shall be reported by the Principal Controller of Defense Accounts (Pensions), Respondent No. 2 herein, to the Central Government through the Controller General of Defense Accounts, for orders.  The alleged passing of order of recovery from pension of the Petitioner was in gross violation of the Regulartions-2008.  Keeping the judgment of the Ld. CAT, there is no wrongful/excess payment made to the Petitioner rather had had been paid less amount of pension and Respondents not only had to return the illegally recovered amount but also have to pay the arrears as per entitled pension.  Even if arguments sake, it is assumed that wrongful/excess payment of pension has been made, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) has passed instructions to deal with the issue of recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Govt. Servants.  The State Commission passed the order based on the pleadings of the Respondents that bank has to recover the over-paid amount of Rs.17,82,451/- as intimated/ordered by Respondent-2 and as per the instructions of RBI Letter No. DGBA.GAD No., H-10450/4503, 001/2008-09 dated 01-06-2009 which is further clarified by RBI Letter No. DGBA GBD No. SUO 546/45.01.001/2020-21 dated 21-01-2021 that if alleged mistake is on the part of the Bank, the recovery should be affected from the Bank without waiting any recovery from the employee/pensioner.  Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission that Respondent-1 had done no mischief rather it had complied with the order of Respondent-2 who in fact is not the competent authority to pass such an order; are patently wrong and thus wrongly dismissed the appeal in limine. 

8.2       On the other hand Respondent-1 contended that the Revision Petition has been filed against the well-reasoned order of the State Commission and the award dated 30.11.2018 passed by the District Forum.   The present Petition relates to refund of Rs.8 Lakhs, interest @12% p.a., compensation of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.25,000/- as cost.  The said sum of Rs.8 lakh was paid by Central Bank of India/Respondent No.1 from Saving Bank Account of Petitioner on 01.08.2016 and paid the same by way of demand draft to Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad/Respondent-2.  The said payment to Respondent No.2 was on the basis of their letters dated 22.02.2016, fax on 23.06.2016, reminder dated 28.06.2016 on account of excess payment of pension to the tune of Rs.17,82,451/- to the petitioner.  Apart from over-payment, RBI Circular No. 141 dated 07.12.2009 was made basis to show that such instruments of RBI are mandatory to be followed by Central Bank of India for such deduction. The said fact was brought to the knowledge of the Petitioner.  Since despite knowledge of the said letters, petitioner failed to take any effective steps in this regard, rather did not bother to do anything, finding no option left, only after intimating the petitioner telephonically by OP No.1, draft of Rs.8 lacs dated 1.8.2016 was paid to pension authorities. Hence, the petitioner filed consumer complaint before District Forum against Central Bank of India as OP No.1 and Pension Authorities as OP No.2. Simultaneously, petitioner also filed OA No.60/2016 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh on Authorities and Central Bank of India as OPs.  During the pendency of CC No.954/2016 vide judgment dated 17.1.2018, the deductions of pension by respondent no.2 was declared to be illegal by CAT, Chandigarh bench in OA No.60/2016 and as per the said judgment dated 17.1.2018, OP No.2 refunded the said deducted amount of Rs.8 lacs, which was accordingly paid back in the bank account of petitioner. Accordingly vide award dated 30.11.2018 by District Forum, on the basis of aforesaid judgment dated 17.11.2018 of CAT and in view of the fact that Rs.8 lacs was paid back to the petitioner, dismissed the complaint by holding “This forum has no legal right to creep into substantial issue regarding grant of any interest in such cases of pay-back of amount by Government Agencies. The complainant has right to agitate this matter before CAT, Chandigarh bench by filing of review petition or otherwise". The State Commission in judgment dated 25.4.2019 did not find any adversity in the award dated 30.11.2018, rather has further affirmed the same. It is further contended that CBI being government owned bank, had to honour repeated letters dated 22.2.2016, 23.6.2016 and 28.7.2016 by PCDA, Allahabad for recovery of pension amount. It is further due to the fact that there is RBI circular dated 1.6.2009 in this regard, which is to be followed by Central Bank of India. CBI in this case is intermediary between PCDA and petitioner with no other role to play. Neither CBI has calculated the pension nor deducted the same. The petitioner was duly intimated about the proposed deductions vide said 3 letters by PCDA, however he failed to take any effective steps in this regard. Only after filing of consumer complaint on 9.11.2016, ОА was filed on 11.11.2016. Thus no deficiency in services can be attributable to OP No.1. Both the Fora below  have rightly held that any further grievance regarding interest, compensation etc. can be determined by CAT, which is the only competent court of jurisdiction in the present facts of the case. Even otherwise, if for the sake of argument, the grievance of interest and compensation is to be considered, the same has to be exclusively and solely burdened upon Respondent-2/Pension authorities and not upon Respondent -1/Central Bank of India.

8.3       It is contended by Respondent No.2 that Revision Petition is not maintainable before the National Commission as the dis-honor of cheques and debit amount of Rs.8 lakhs is not under the preview of PCDA (Pension).  Respondent No.2 is an office under Controller General of Defense Accounts, New Delhi under administrative control of the Ministry of Defense dealing with pension matters and is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Commission.  It is further contended that the District Forum observed that the Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner do not have the relationship of the consumer and service provider and it has no legal right to creep into the substantial issue regarding grant of any interest in the cases of pay-back of amount by government agencies. Regarding the relief of recovery and reduction in pension, the complainant had already invoked the jurisdiction of Central administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh bench by way of filing OA No. 1033 of 2014. The service matter of a government servant cannot be dealt with by any of the Forum under the Act. Therefore, the matter should not be considered on merit. The outstanding dues of the complainant had been paid, and none of the issues survive any more. The Appeal was dismissed by the State Commission after observing that amount of Rs.8.00 lacs withdrawn from the account of the complainant on 01/08/2016 has been paid back to the petitioner's account in compliance of the order date 17/01/2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and hence the case was devoid of merits and the State Commission dismissed the appeal in limine. It is further contended that Respondent No. 2 is the Pension Payment Authority and Respondent No. 1 is the Pension Disbursing Authority. Based on Pension Payment Oder (PPO) or any corrigendum thereto; issued by the Respondent No. 2, the Respondent no.1 disburses the pension. The grievance of the petitioner is twofold: firstly, debiting of Rs. 8 lacs from his SB A/c without his consent and secondly, dishonoring of three cheques despite of sufficient credit balance in the A/c. The complainant has already invoked the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench by way of filing OA No. 1033 of 2014 and as such the complaint was not maintainable. In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhavani, 2008 AIR (SC) 2957, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue regarding the non-applicability of the Act to the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and observed that: "...it is evident 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 forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition 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 his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any of his grance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986." In Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs Dir. Health Services, Haryana & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5476 of 2013, the Hon'be Supreme Court reiterated its observations in Bhavnani (2008) case (supra) and further observed that: "it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. (Vide: United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 22; Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537; and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213).”

9.         We have carefully gone through the orders of the District Forum, State Commission, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  In this case, OP-1 being the Pension Distributing Authority, was justified in complying with the directions of OP-2, who was the Pension Payment Authority, with respect to recovery of the excess pension paid. Ideally, OP-1 should have given proper notice to the Petitioner herein with respect to deductions so that he could have made alternate arrangements of issuing cheques to third parties to avoid situation of their dis-honour. Respondent-1/Bank has contended that the Petitioner herein was duly intimated about the proposed deductions vide three letters by the Respondent-2, however, he failed to take any effective steps in this regard. It is only after filing consumer complaint on 09.11.2016 that OA was filed on 11.11.2016. Now, the issue of excess payment of pension having been already decided by the CAT, Chandigarh Bench in favour of the Petitioner herein, we are of the view that no further interference in the orders of the lower Fora is called for. 

10.       It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments^[1] that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. In exercising of revisonal jurisdiction, the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

11.       In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that State Commission has given a well-reasoned order and we find no reason to interfere with its findings. We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed.

12.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.