Haryana

Kurukshetra

57/2017

Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank - Opp.Party(s)

A.S.Pabla

04 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.57 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 07.03.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 04.05.2018.

Lt. Col. Avtar Singh Aujla (Retd.), aged 66 years, resident of House No.336, Sector-6, Panchkula (Haryana).

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, CPPC, 2^nd Floor, MMO Building, MG Road Fort, Mumbai-400023.
2. The Bank Manager, Central Bank of India, GT Road, Shahbad Markanda, Distt. Kurukshetra (Haryana).

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. A.S.Pabla, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Rajan Chawla, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Lt. Col. Avtar Singh against Central Bank of India, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is having his account No.0000001658333922 with the Op No.2.  It is alleged that the complainant had filed an OA No.356/2011 in Hon’ble Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench for grant of disability pension.  In the said OA, the Hon’ble AFT was pleased to grant the said disability pension to the complainant vide order dt. 11.05.2015 and directed the Army Authorities i.e. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad to release the disability pension to the complainant.  It is further alleged that the Army Authorities/PCDA(P) i.e. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad has accepted the order dt. 11.05.2015 and towards implementation of the said order has issued PPO and dispatched the same to the Ops with the direction to release the pensioner benefits to the complainant.  The complainant approached the Ops several times for release of said amount of PPO but the same has not been released till today.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to release the amount as per PPO order No.D/0110/2012 alongwith interest @ 18% and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for the adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the answering Ops have no concern with the pension of the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex,C5 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and thereafter closed the evidence.  On the other hand, no evidence was led by the Ops. 

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             One document, Ex.C4 is there on record, which is order passed by P.C.D.A.(P).  We cannot go beyond this order.  However, at the time of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that now the bank has started to make the payment of pension.  It is further stated that the arrears of pension are there against the Ops.  So, we desire that the Ops should make the payment of arrears of pension.

7.             With these observations, the complaint of complainant stands allowed partly.  The order; be complied within the period of two months.                       A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.: 04.05.2018.

 

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member