Delhi

StateCommission

CC/350/2017

VAIJANTIMALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

RAKESH DHINGRA

29 Jan 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision:29.01.2018

 

 

Complaint Case No.350/2017

 

Smt. Vaijantimala,

W/o Late Sh. Dharam Singh,

House No.58, Gali No.4, Arya Nagar,

Delhi-110092.

…. Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

1. Central Bank of India,

Having its branch at 25/4, Karkardooma Gaon,

Karkardooma, Delhi-110092, Through its

Chief/Branch Manager.

 

2. Sh. Manamohan Singh,

Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India,

25/4, Karkardooma Gaon,

Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.

 

3. Central Bank of India through its Chairman,

H.O.: Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point,

Mumbai-400021.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

  

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. A complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is filed by Smt. Vaijantimala, widow of deceased Shri Dharam Singh.  Complainant has averred that her husband, Late Shri Dharam Singh was superannuated on 31.10.2000 from Land & Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.  The Govt. of India released pension from 01.11.2000 up to the date of his death i.e. 03.10.2004 in the bank account maintained by the deceased with OP-1 i.e. Central Bank of India, Karkardooma, Delhi.  After death of her husband, the family pension commenced in the name of complainant i.e. Smt. Vaijantimala and was credited in the bank account maintained with OP-1.  It is alleged that in November 2014, the OP-2 i.e. Branch Manager of OP-1 refused the complainant to withdraw money from her savings account and thereupon she had filed life certificate with the bank.  It was alleged that again on 20.4.15, the OPs refused her from withdrawing pension from her account.  Thereupon she had sent a legal notice to the OPs to permit her to withdraw the pension amount to her along with interest @ 20% per annum.  It is alleged that due to setback received by her for not allowing her to withdraw pension, the complainant had also suffered paralytic attack on 22.4.15 due to tension and stress.  The complainant also sent another legal notice in May 2015.  Thereupon complainant had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi as she was not allowed to withdraw pension from her account.  However, the said petition was later on withdrawn and a letter dated 18.1.16 was given to complainant explaining the reasons for alleged illegal recovery from the family pension.  It is stated that the alleged recovery is still continuing.  It is stated that a request was made to OP on 4.4.15 to release the family pension.  Another legal notice was also sent on 8.5.15 but of no use.  Left with no option, the complainant has filed the present complaint making following prayers:

“a)         INTERIM: to stop the illegal monthly recovery from the family   pension of the complainant;

 

b)          to pay the cost of medical care of the complainant resulted due to paralytic attack to the complainant, amounting to Rs.40,00,000/-;

 

c)           to pay/refund the amount illegally recovered from the family pension of the complainant by the respondents amounting to Rs.77,735/- upto October 2016;

 

d)          to pay the interest @ 24% per annum on the amount retained by the respondent illegally;

 

e)           to pay the cost of litigation of Rs.50,000/-;

 

f)           to pass any other order as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.”

     

2. Arguments heard on the maintainability of complaint.
3. Perusal of complaint shows that amount of alleged wrongful recovery is Rs.3,25,275/-.  As per letter dated 18.1.16 of OP on record, extra amount of pension i.e. Rs.3,25,275/- was paid to complainant.  After deducting some arrears, the alleged net recovery from complainant of Rs.2,89,461/- is still to be made and the same is being made by deducting 1/3^rd from her family pension.  Complainant has alleged that there is no fault of the complainant and alleged recovery is wrongly made.  Apart from aforesaid claim, the claimant has also made a claim of Rs.40 lacs towards payment of cost of medical care of the complainant due to paralytic attack suffered by her.  No documents were filed with the complaint towards the cost of alleged medical care to substantiate the aforesaid stand.  On being directed to produce the documents, the complainant has filed prescription slip along with discharge summary of complainant from Shanti Mukand Hospital.  The same shows that she was admitted in the aforesaid hospital for 5-6 days on account of CVA (L) hemiparesis, Ischemic stroke.  The alleged expenses incurred are around few thousands only in all inclusive of medicines.  Nothing is stated in this regard in the legal notices sent to the OP.  The complainant has failed to give necessary details about giving justification for claiming Rs. 40 lacs towards cost of medical care.  In the entire complaint, there is only one para about the allegation of paralytic attack which is as under:

“That immediately thereafter on 22.04.2015 the complainant got a setback and got a paralytic attack due to tension and stress on mind as the complainant had no other source to arrange funds for giving a gift to her niece on 24.04.2015.”

 

4. Further no document is placed on record as to whether the complainant had taken any treatment after 27.5.15.  No basis have been given as to how the complainant is claiming Rs.40 lacs towards cost of medical care.  The claim is highly exaggerated without giving any basis.  The quantum of compensation has to be realistic and not highly exaggerated as is claimed in the present case.  The same has been done to disturb the hierarchy of the system.  The complainant has deliberately filed the claim before this Commission to avoid approaching District Forum.  Had the claimant claimed the realistic cost/compensation, the claim would have been in the jurisdiction of District Forum.  
5. In view of above discussion, we find that complainant has deliberately claimed exaggerated amount in order to bring the case before the State Commission.  The complaint is therefore dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction with the observation that complainant is at liberty to approach District Forum by filing fresh complaint in accordance with law.
6. The complaint stands dismissed at admission stage.
7. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant.  Thereafter the file

be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member