Master Baldev Singh Gill filed a consumer case on 01 Aug 2008 against Chairman, in the Moga Consumer Court. The case no is CC/08/84 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Punjab
Moga
CC/08/84
Master Baldev Singh Gill - Complainant(s)
Versus
Chairman, - Opp.Party(s)
Sh.Rajwinder Singh
01 Aug 2008
ORDER
distt.consumer moga district consumer forum,moga consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/84
Master Baldev Singh Gill
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Chairman, The Zonal Manager, The District Manager The Manager, District Treasury Officer,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Jagmohan Singh Chawla 2. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Sh.Rajwinder Singh
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint no.84 of 21.07.2008 Date of Decision:01.08.2008 Master Baldev Singh Gill (Retired) aged 67 years son of Sh.Mukand Singh, VPO Phule Wala Via: Gholia Khurd, Tehsil: Bagha Purana, Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Chairman, Central Bank of India, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. 2. The Zonal Manager, Central bank of India, K.P.Complex Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. 3. The District Manager, Central Bank of India, Partap Road, Moga. 4. The Manager, Central Bank of India, Bagha Purana, Distt.Moga. 5. District Treasury Officer, Moga. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Sh.Angrej Singh, Adv.counsel for the complainant. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Briefly stated, after retirement as DPE from Government High School, Gholia Kalan, Distt.Moga, the complainant has been drawing his pension alongwith other allowances from OP4-Central Bank. That the complainant is holder of PPO No.130089/PB. That as per the letter issued by Accountant General Punjab, Chandigarh to OP5-Treasury Officer, the complainant is entitled to the revised pension w.e.f. 01.04.1999. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to OPs for disbursement of the arrears of pensionery benefit but to no effect. That after a long wait, the complainant submitted his request to the Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh for payment of arrears of pensionery benefit. After considering his letter, the Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh accepted his claim and ordered to release the arrears of pension and LTC difference amounting to Rs.46857/- and Rs.1096/- total amounting to Rs.47953/-. That inspite of the order passed by Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh, all the issues were not solved by the OPs. Thereafter, OP4-Central Bank issued a letter on 20.05.2008 to pension department regarding the verification of his 9 year old record for solving his remaining issues and also advised the complainant to visit their bank and they also released a sum of Rs.7473/- to him. That on further representation to the office of Banking Ombudsman Chandigarh on 20/21-05-2008 that he was only delivered with LTC 4th span difference and LTC 3 span difference is still remained with the bank from 1999 to 2005 amounting to Rs.7599 and has not delivered to the complainant and he was also entitled for the old age pension benefits from 31.03.2006 to 31.05.2008 amounting to Rs.3640/- @ Rs.140/- per month (totaling 26 months), they declined his legal and natural demands vide their letter dated 27.05.2005. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the redressal of his aforesaid grievances and also to pay Rs.30000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment caused to him. 2. We have heard Sh.Angrej Singh ld.counsel for the complainant and gone through the record on file. 3. The allegations in the complaint show that for the aforesaid benefits/ grievances Sh.Baldev Singh complainant had already approached Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh who vide letter no. BO (CHG) Complainant No.04.1825/07-08/8335/2007-08 dated 12.05.2008 passed the order for releasing the difference of arrears of pension and LTC to the extent of Rs.46857/- and Rs.1096/- total amounting to Rs.47953/-. Thereafter, he was paid the difference of LTC 3rd span amounting to Rs.7599/-. Thus, it shows that the Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh had already acceded to the major demand of the complainant. After the aforesaid decision of Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh, the complainant has no right to re-agitate the matter before this Forum on the same cause of action because this Forum can not act as an Appellate authority against the order of Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant can not be admitted being not maintainable. Hence the complaint stands dismissed. File be consigned to record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:01.08.2008.