DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

C.C.NO. 147 OF 2024

                             Date of Filing: 09.08.2024

                     Date of Order: 19.11.2024

           Himansubala Tripathy, aged about 72years

           W/O- Basanta Ku.Tripathy

           AT- MainRoad Phulbani

           PO/PS- Phulbani

           DIST- Kandhamal                                     ……….  Complainant

-Versus-

          Chief Manager,

          State Bank of India, Main Branch,

          I.G.Super Market,

          AT/PO/DIST- Dhenkanal                                       .……... OPP. Party

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                        Sri Sudhakar Senapothi          - Member.

For the Complainant: Mr.Naresh Kumar Padhy Advocate

For O.P.                    : Mr.Sidheswar Das Advocate

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Sudhakar Senapothi, Member

          Complainant Himanshubala Tripathy has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency in service  & harassment on the part of Opposite Party for not responding to her representation for enhancement of the pension after clearance of all the dues & praying therein for direction to the O.P. to released her full value of the pension with effect from 20.12.2023 and a sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards compensation for deficiency in service & harassment and a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards cost of litigation.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant was working as a employee under the State of Odisha and retired from Govt. services on 31.08.2010. Soon after her retirement she was paid pension vide PPO No. 76644 issued by Controller of Accounts, Odisha through SBI, Main Branch, Dhenkanal. The complainant had availed an advance(loan) of Rs,3,96,183/- which was to be repaid  within a period of 12years staring from 20.12.2011  and ending on 19.12.2023. As per rules she is entitled to get the full value of pension with effect  from 20.12.2023 onwards. She noticed that the pension was not paid in full even after repayment of the loan amount. So she requested the O.P to pay her full pension but the O.P deffered dates after dates for which she lodged a written complain for redressal of her grievance. The O.P even though acknowledged the receipt of the application on 29.05.2024 sat over the representation for more than 2 months and the action taken on the basis of her representation was not communicated to her for which the complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency in service on part of the O.P. It is further pleaded that she is a senior citizen of 74 years old and her husband being over 80 years both of them rain to the O.P bank at least twice in the month by climbing the stairs of the bank with the help of each other. During the time of rising prices she depends solely on the pension paid to her as the O.P did not attend to her grievance the complainant finding no other alternative has filed this case for redressal of her grievance .
2. After receipt of notice the O.P appeared through Advocate Mr.Sidheswar Das but preferred not to file any written statement  in this case. After the stipulated period for filing written statement was over the case was posted for hearing. Just before the pronouncement of the order the O.P filed one petition under order 9 rule 7 of CPC read with section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated 29.10.2024 in which they were debarred from filing written statement. As similar petitions have been rejected on previous occasion the same petition filed today stands rejected.
3.  The complainant in support of her case has filed the copy of the application dated 29.05.2024 addressed to the O.P, pension payment order bearing PPO NO.76644 and her evidence in shape of affidavit.
4. In the face of pleading & counter pleading of the parties the following issues are framed.

i)Whether the complainant is entitled to full value of the pension w.e.f. 20.12.2023 or not ?

ii)Is there any deficiency on the part of the O.P. ?

iii) Whether the complainant has been harassed by the conduct of the O.P ?

iv)To what relief the complainant is entitled.

5. The first question relating to this case is whether the complainant is entitled to full value of the pension after clearance of the advance(loan) or not ?

It is seen from documents on record  that the complainant has made an application on dated 29.05.2024 addressed to the O.P enclosing therewith the copy of the PPO No.76644 issued by Controller of Accounts Odisha ,BBSR. The receipt of which is duly acknowledged by the O.P on 30.05.2024 under his seal and signature. On examination on the PPO it is found that the date of commencement of reduced pension starts from 20.12.2011 and the commuted pension of the pension shall start on 20.12.2023 subject to pensioner being alive on that date. It is also mentioned  that the period of 12years after the date consumer station which I seal & signed by the treasury officer Dhenkanal on 21.12.2011.The copies of the documents filed by the complainant is not disputed in any manner by the O.P. Besides the complainant has filed her evidence in shape of affidavit  which corroborates the allegation of the complainant. The evidence adduce and produce by the complainant remains unchallenged and unrebutted. So it is very much clear from the evidence adduced and produced by the complainant that she is entitled to her full pension after a period of 12years with effect from 20.12.2023 and the O.P being the authorized agency to deal with the pension did not act promptly to pay the full pension to her in spite of verbal and written complains there by causing deficiency in service and harassment to her.

6. Now coming to Issue No. 2 & 3 he complainant is an old lady of 72years and her husband is about 80years old. In her evidence she has stated that  both of them climbed to the first floor of the bank with the help of each other to meet the O.P for redressal of her grievance. The O.P by sitting over the matter has behaved in a inhuman manner by sitting over her verbal and written complains and thereby causing financial hardship for the pensioner and her family.
7. As a case of deficiency in service coupled with harassment is made out  against the O.P he is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and harassment sustained by her and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The O.P is directed to pay the full pension to the complainant with effect from 01.12.2024 onwards regularly and the differential pension from 20.12.2023 till 30.11.2024 . The O.P is further directed to pay compensation for Rs.1 lakhs and sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation . The order is to be complied within a period of 30days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @12% shall be charged on the amount of cost and compensation from the date of order till its compliance.

I agree                                                    Computerized & corrected by me.

PRESIDENT                                              MEMBER

Pronounced in the open Commission today on this 19^th day of November 2024.

         MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT