CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE(CPPC),STATE BANK OF INDIA. V/S COLONEL BALJEET SINGH(RETD). - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Panchkula

CC/232/2019

COLONEL BALJEET SINGH(RETD). - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE(CPPC),STATE BANK OF INDIA. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

31 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

Consumer Complaint No	:	232 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	18.04.2019
Date of Decision	:	31.08.2021

Colonel Baljeet Singh (Retd.) son of Shri Harchand Singh Dhaliwal, residing at Flat No.A-305, Vikram Vihar AWHO, Sector 27, Panchkula-134116.

….Complainant.

Versus

Centralised Pension Processing Centre (CPPC), State Bank of India Administrative Office Building, 2^nd Floor, Plot No.1/2, Sector-5, Panchkula (Haryana) 134109

….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

For the Parties: Complainant in person.

Sh.Deep Chand Garg, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1. The brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant retired from Army on 30^th April 2017 and since then have pension account No.31955569673 in State Bank of India. On retirement of the complainant on 30.04.2017, Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) Allahbad [PCDA (Pension) Allahbad] had released Rs.29 lakh approximately (Rs.9,39,000/- & Rs.19,85,280/-) as gratuity and other benefits to be transferred into pension account of complainant, however this money was not timely credited into his account by Centralized Pension Processing Centre (CPPC), State Bank of India, Panchkula and there was a delay of three months(till 02 August, 2017). Complainant was under impression that it was normal for the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad ]PCDA (P) Allahabad] to release these benefits in 1 to 2 months, however when he contacted PCDA (P) Allahabad, it was told that the money had been released immediately on my retirement, and PPO is the final document/authority for transfer of pension and other benefits to his account. They advised him to contact at SBI Branch for further queries. Accordingly, complainant contacted the Branch Manager Mr. Rajesh Verma at SBI Badhni Kalan, three times in mid-May to mid-July 2017 and also spoke to him on mobile. On the advice of the friends of the complainant, complainant visited concerned official Mr. Varun at CPPC Panchkula, who told him that his KYC and undertaking had not been received by CPPC and hence there is delay in transfer of pension benefits into his account. On further enquiry with CPPC it was revealed that an E-mail dated 03.05.2017, had been sent from CPPC

2. Upon notices OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, estopped by his own act and conduct, concealment of true and material facts, bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, no cause of action, etc. On merits, it is stated that complainant got retired on 30.04.2017. The pension payment order (PPO) was received on 24.04.2017 and account was opened in pension application software on 02.05.2017 within the time bound frame. PDA is authorized to release the sanctioned amount on behalf of the pension sanctioning authority, only after the mandatory formalities including that of submission of KYC documents and mandatory Irrevocable Letter of Undertaking, are completed by the petitioner at his pension paying branch and the relevant entry to the effect is made and subsequently authorized by the competent officials. Upon completion of requisite formalities by the complainant, the pension account was opened promptly and funds released in due course. The complainant was well aware about the above said instructions contained in PCDA (P) Allahabad, Circular No.132 dated 27.01.2015 and circular No.546 dated 10.09.2015 which are available on PCDA (Web Portal). It is mentioned in PPO that the conditions/instructions for payment of pension/retirement gratuity awards contained in pension payment instructions (P.P.I.) 2005 Edition as amended from time to time as well as in various circulars issued from time to time by PCDA (Pension) will continue to be operative. The various certificates required to be obtained before making payment will continue to be obtained. The instructions regarding payment of pension to retired employees of central and state governments/defence, railway etc. including submission of mandatory undertaking by the pensioner to pension paying branch are available on bank’s web portal http://www.sbi.ci.in/portal/web customer-care/payment-of-pensions. The complainant himself has admitted that while on his visit to the office of CPPC Panchkula, in July 2017, the deficiency on the part of complainant was clearly made known to him. As such the delay in commencement of payment of pension to the complainant, was due to the failure on the part of the complainant to complete the mandatory formalities and not on the part of the OP. Pensioner is invariably required to submit KYC documents and undertaking at the pension paying branch, apart from submitting mandatory Irreovcable letter of undertaking on the prescribed format in advance with his pension sanctioning authority, in time to enable the PDA to initiated the process of payment of pension promptly. After opening of new account in pension application software on 02.05.2017, the letter dated 02.05.2017 intimating opening of pension account in pension application software was sent to pension paying branch advising the said branch to seed the undertaking received from the pensioner in pension application software. Copy of the said letter dated 02.05.2017 was also sent to the complainant. Delay in releasing the pension was caused due to the late submission of undertaking on the part of complainant despite having knowledge regarding submission of mandatory undertaking to pension paying branch. The undertaking was submitted by the complainant on 21.07.2017 at the pension payment branch. After receiving the same it was immediately seeded in pension application software on 26.07.2017. The retirement benefits were credited in the complainant account No.3195556973 on 02.08.2017 during the next global pension processing. Further denying rest of allegations made by the complainant in his complaint prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3. To prove the case of the complainant, Authorized Representative of the complainant has tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 in evidence and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Authorized representative for the OP has tendered his affidavit as Annexure RA along with documents Annexure R1 to R7 and closed the evidence.

During the arguments, the learned counsel for the OP has placed on record the documents i.e. circular no.RBI/2004/ 224 as mark ‘A’ and guidelines issued by the O/o of the Principal Controller of Accounts(Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad Cantt (UP) as Mark ‘B’ for proper adjudication of the dispute in a proper and fair manner.

4. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and gone through the record carefully.

5. Admittedly, the pension payment order (herein after referred to as PPO) bearing No. M/03416/2017 (Annexure C-3), assigned to the complainant in respect of his retirement on 30.04.2017, was received in the office of opposite party on 24.04.2017 and pension account of the complainant was opened on 02.05.2017. The transfer of retiral benefits i.e. gratuity etc amounting to Rs.29 lacs such into the pension account of the complainant on 02.08.2017 is also not disputed. The grievance of the complainant is with regard to the delayed transfer of the aforementioned amount of Rs.29 lacs into his pension account. The case of the complainant is that the OP has transferred the aforementioned amount of Rs.29 Lacs into his account with a delay of about three months thereby causing monitory loss of interest to the complainant.

6. The opposite party has denied any delay on its part in the disbursement of the pensionary benefits. It is submitted that as per procedural guidelines laid down by the pension sanctioning authority, it was mandatory upon the pension sanctioning authority to send the necessary undertaking of the complainant as well as KYC documents along with PPO order to the opposite party so as to forward the same to the pension paying branch for the purposes of disbursement of the pensionary benefits to the complainant. The learned counsel contended that the pension sanctioning authority did not send the necessary undertaking as well as KYC of the complainant along with PPO order as per guidelines mentioned in Annexure R1, R2, R3 to the opposite party. It is contended that the complainant has also failed to provide the necessary undertaking as well as KYC documents to the opposite party as well as pension paying branch i.e. SBI Badhni Kalan, Branch Punjab as asked vide letter dated 02.05.2017 and thus, there was no delay on the part of the opposite party in making the disbursement of retiral benefits into the account of the complainant. It is hotly argued that as per instructions mentioned on the PPO order and the information available on the website of the OP i.e. http://www.sbi.co.in/portal/web/customer-care/payment-of pensions, the complainant was bound to provide the necessary undertaking alongwith KYC to the pension paying branch. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel asserted that the complainant himself was negligent while not providing the necessary undertaking as well as his KYC to the pension paying branch i.e. SBI Badhni Kalan, Branch Punjab and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7. The aforesaid pleas taken by the OP denying delay in the disbursement of the pensionary benefits to the complainant is not acceptable to us. As per E-mail dated 03.05.2017 sent by the opposite part to the pension paying branch Badhni Kalan, Branch Punjab, copy of which is available on record as Annexure C-2, the pension paying branch was asked to contact the pensioner i.e. complainant for taking KYC, undertaking, copy of PAN and copy of Aadhar Card. The contents of aforesaid E-mail(Annexure C-2) for the sake of clarity and convenience are reproduced as under:-

“Dear Sir,

MISSION 110% CAMPAIGN: INTRODUCTION OF NEW DESK “REACH TO THE PENSIONER”.

We advise that a new Pension Account of Sh.Baljeet Singh (31955 69679) has been opened in Pension Software on the basis of documents received. A computer generated letter has been dispatched to your branch as well as Pensioner.

You are requested to contact the Pensioner for taking of KYC, Undertaking, Copy of PAN and copy of Aadhar Card.

Further we advise that Pensioner is also being contacted telephonically by CPPC and requesting him/her to visit the concerned branch along with documents immediately. You are requested to amend the undertaking flag to “Y” in Pension software immediately after receiving the same from Pensioner by confirming from Pension software also that Pension Account has been opened.

Regards

AGM

CPPC PKL”

8. A bare perusal of above would reveal that it was the responsibility of the pension paying branch to contact the complainant for taking of KYC and undertaking etc. Although it has been alleged that complainant was asked vide letter dated 02.05.2017 to provide the necessary undertaking etc. but the receipt of the same has been vehemently denied by the complainant. It is the specific and categoric assertion of the complainant that he never received any such intimation through SMS, telephonic call or E-mail, as alleged by the opposite party asking him to provide the KYC etc. but the opposite party failed to disprove the said assertion of the complainant by leading any positive and cogent evidence. Even the opposite party has not clarified as to how and adopting which mode of service, the complainant was asked to provide KYC documents. It is a well settled law that mere assertions and by not corroborating and cogent evidence have no evidentiary value. The complainant in Para No.6 of the complaint and corresponding of the Affidavit Annexure CA has categorically stated that the Branch Manager Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma (Mob: 9888474063) at SBI Badhni Kalan, was contacted by him thrice in Mid may to Mid July, 2017 and also contacted him on telephone/mobile etc. but said Rajesh Kumar Verma never asked to provide the KYC documents etc. In order to disprove the aforesaid contention of the complainant, the opposite party could have brought the documentary evidence of said Rajesh Verma on record, but it preferred not to bring the same for the reasons best known to it.

9. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that though it was necessary for the pension sanctioning authority to send the necessary undertaking as well as KYC of the complainant along with PPO order to the opposite party as per guidelines laid down in Annexure R-2, R-3 and R-4, but inaction in this regard on the part of the pension sanctioning authority do not exonerate the opposite party, in any manner, from its duty to seek the required documents from the complainant. It was the bounded duty of the opposite party to take prompt action in the disbursement of the retiral benefits to the complainant as it had no right to prevent the complainant from utilization of his pensionary amounts.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that opposite party has been negligent and deficient while rendering services to the complainant. However, whole responsibility cannot be imposed upon the OP in the delayed disbursement of the retiral benefits in the account of the complainant. As per PPO order as well as the information available on the website i.e.

11. As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-