C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/32
COMPLAINANT : Manotosh Kumar Maitra,
S/o Bharat Chandra Maitra
Vill. Satyapur, P.O. Arpara,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1. Chief Manager, State Bank of India
Central Pension Payment Cell,
Vivekananda Road Branch,
83/1, Vivekananda Road, Kolkata – 4
2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Krishnagar Branch (0122), 5 B, D.L.Roy Road
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
3. Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Bethuadahari Branch,
Vill + P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY MEMBER
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 19th May, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he retired from service as Naik under Indian Military on superannuation in April, 2009. He opened pension account under the OP No. 3, SBI, Bethuadahari Branch. On 15.10.09 his authority sent a letter to the OP No. 2 intimating the grant of all pensionary benefits and to disburse the same to him. OP No. 2 intimated OP No. 3 on 05.11.09 to make payment of the pensionary amount to the complainant and the OP No. 1 issued a letter on 23.11.09 allowing the complainant to have the pensionary benefits, but the OP No. 3 did not disburse the pensionary benefits to him accordingly. So on 27.01.10 he sent a letter of complaint to the OP No. 1 for not disbursing the pension to him, but no reply was given to him. So on 06.03.10 he again sent a letter to the OP No. 3 through courier. In spite of that the pension amount including gratuity and commutation amount are not disbursed to him till to date. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP No. 2 has filed a written objection in this case, inter alia, stating that the petition of complaint is not maintainable in its present form and nature. He has also stated that it is not at all correct that service department of the complainant issued a letter to the OP No. 2 on 15.10.09 for paying pensionary benefits, nor this complainant made any written complaint before the OP No. 2 on 27.01.10 and 06.03.10. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP. Hence the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
OP No. 3 has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that on 09.04.10 he credited Rs. 1,98,780/-, Rs. 3,75,011/- and Rs. 96,128/- as arrear monthly pension for 11 months in the Savings Bank A/C of the complainant and he has regretted for undue delay caused by him on his part.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint along with annexed documents and the written versions filed by the OPs and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that the complainant is a retired employee under Indian Military who opened a pension account under the OP No. 3 at its Bethuadahari Branch vide SB A/C No. 3059312439. It is also established that the authority of the complainant sanctioned pension and retirement benefits in his favour and to that extent a letter was sent to the OP No. 2 on 15.10.09. OP No. 2 duly forwarded that letter to the OP No. 3 on 05.11.09 (Annexure – 3) directing him to make arrangement for payment of pension and other benefits to this complainant, but the OP No. 3 remained silent for a long period without assigning any reason. OP No. 2 has categorically stated in his written version that he intimated OP No. 3 vide letter dated 05.11.09 to make payment of the pension to the complainant. From 'Annexure – 5’ it is available that the complainant filed a petition before the OP No. 2 on 27.01.10 requesting him to make arrangement for payment of the pensionary benefits to him, but to no effect. There is no reasonable ground as assigned by the OP No. 3 for causing inordinate delay in payment of the pensionary benefits to this complainant though in the written version he has stated that on 09.04.10 he made payment to this complainant on different heads amounting to Rs.1,98,780/-, Rs. 3,75,011/- and Rs. 96,128/-, but at the same time he has regretted for the undue delay on his part owing to heavy pressure of work which we hold is not a sufficient ground to commit his deficiency in service in not making payment to this complainant within due time. Rather he was delayed for about 4 months in making payment of all the pensionary benefits to this complainant. Ld. lawyer for the complainant has submitted that all the pensionary benefits was disbursed to this complainant by the OP No. 3 after a gap of long 4 months. So he has prayed for compensation along with litigation cost for mental pain and sufferings caused to the complainant.
In view of the above discussions and considering the nature of this case, our considered view is that the OP No. 3 has caused inordinate delay in not disbursing the pensionary benefits to this complainant in due time, rather he made payment after filing of this case and receipt of the notice of this case also. So we hold that there is gross deficiency in service committed on the part of the OP No. 3. We do also hold in such a situation the complainant is entitled to get the compensation + litigation cost. In result the case succeeds in part against the OP No. 3.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/32 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs in part. The complainant is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- + litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The OP No. 3 is directed to make payment of the decretal dues amounting to Rs. 6,000/- to this complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will accrue interest @ 9% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
