Delhi

North

CC/219/2015

Dr. V.K. ROHTAGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

CORPORATION BANK - Opp.Party(s)

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No.: 219/2015

Dr. V.K. Rohtagi

IA/46 B, Ashok Vihar,

Phase I, Delhi-110052                                                    ...           Complainant

                                                          VS

Corporation Bank,

Kamla Nagar Branch,

Sunder Bhawan, 28-E, Kamla Nagar ,

New Delhi-110007.                                                                          …       Opposite Party

ORDER

12/04/2023

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging non-payment of interest for delayed payment of DR in monthly family pension which became payable to the Complainant with immediate effect after demise of his wife, Mrs. Usha Rohtagi on 17.01.2001. The pension paying order i.e. the PPO No. 676690100612 dated 29.05.2001, issued by the PPO issuing authority/ PAO.No.VII alongwith necessary documents including a pass book, were made available with the pension paying bank /OP and in terms of the PPO, the family pension comprising of basic pension Rs.3100/- plus the applicable DR as mentioned at para 5 on the reverse of the PPO document effective from 18.01.2001 was required to be paid on monthly basis by crediting pension amount to the complainant’s Account No.0283/SB/01/013025.

 

2.       It has been alleged in the complaint that pension pass book meant for keeping a record of all payments being made from time to time, remained incomplete on reason of negligence and therefore, verification could not be done until the ‘Statements of Account’, in lieu of the pass book, were provided in 2012. On examination of the A/C statements by the Complainant, it was discovered that pension got started from 1^st Jan, 2021 instead of 18^th Jan 2001 as provided in the PPO documents. This was also confirmed from the RTI that revealed that pension payment was started from 01.01.2001 instead of 18.01.2001 due to oversight. It further discovered that DR constituent of the monthly amounts right from day one i.e. from Jan 2001 to Sept 2007 had also not been paid because of negligence on the part of OP bank officials.

 

3.       The complainant also made complaints to OP on  07.12.2011, 21.12.2011, 17.07.2012, 26.07.2012, 13.08.2012 & 07.11.2012 by to pursue his case of non-payment of DR for the period from January 2001 to September 2008 and arrears amounting to Rs.31,270/- was paid on 30 Oct 2013 after the complaints and no interest was paid on this delayed payment. However, a payment of Rs.34,657/- was credited to the complainant’s account on 07.03.2014 as interest on the delayed payment following complaints by the Complainant.  It has also been alleged that the complainant’s account was freezed in January 2013 without any reason & in blatant disregard to rules & procedural norms, without any information to the complainant and it was revoked on 04.09.2013.

 

4.       Regarding payment of Rs.34,657/- on 07.03.2014 as interest on the delayed payment, it has been alleged that no details of calculation of interest was provided and he got this calculation through RTI and on scrutiny of the calculation sheet, it was found that no interest­­  for the period from Jan 2001 to Sept 2008 was paid though an interest @ 8 % per annum for the period from Oct 2008 to Dec 2013 was paid. Accordingly, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.3,106/- being the excess income tax paid due to irregular & highly erratic payments as due care was not taken by OP while ascertaining the exact amounts in pension payments. As a result, the complainant was compelled to declare a higher income.

 

5.       In view of the above circumstances the complainant preferred complaint before this Commission praying that the Opposite Party be directed to:-

 

1. Pay 12 % interest for whole of delayed period from Jan. 2001 to Oct. 2013 with additional interest for further period from Oct 2013 up to the actual date of full & final payment.
2. Pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant as a direct consequence of illegal, arbitrary freezing of account in blatant disregard to rules & procedural violations.
3. Pay a sum of Rs. 3,160/- towards compensation for excess income tax paid as a direct consequence of negligence.
4. Pay a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards reimburse of expenses on conveyance & petty expenses.
5. Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of this petition, for which act of kindness, the complainant shall as is duty bound, ever pray.
6. Any other relief which the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit in the interest and justice to the complainant.

 

6.       Accordingly, notice was issued to the OP and in response, the OP has filed reply stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in the eyes of law or on facts as complainant has made statements without any basis to substantiate his averments and the complaint merits outright dismissal as the Complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has twisted the facts of complaint to suit his convenience with an intention to mislead the Forum. It has been stated that the Complainant in his complaint  himself has admitted in para 7 of the complaint that  interest @ 8 % for the remaining period, October 2008 to December 2013 was paid to him by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has not only deliberately twisted and distorted the facts to mislead the forum but had presented the present complaint to give a different picture which is otherwise barred by limitation under Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as Complainant’s claim is actually for the payment of interest on delayed payment of DR for the period from January, 2001 to September, 2008. Therefore, the present complaint of the Complainant in totality is barred by limitation as the same has been filed beyond the time as prescribed under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7.         It has also been contended by the OP that the issue raised by Complainant in the present complaint regarding unlawful and arbitrary freezing of account 0283/SB/01013025, which came to Complainant’s notice in January 2013, has also become barred by limitation. The Complainant has also not substantiated  as to how he suffered a loss of Rs.3,160/- being the excess income tax paid due to alleged irregular and highly erratic payments made by the Opposite Party, as such, this issue also does not deserve any consideration as well as the same is also barred by limitation.

 

8.       It has also been submitted by the OP that the Complainant had also approached the Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi (Reserve Bank of India) vide Complainant No.201415014008326 dated 25^th Feb, 2015 and the Banking Ombudsman has also disposed off the complaint against the Complainant stating that ” the Bank had paid DA arrears alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. for the delayed period of DA arrear payments as envisaged in Master Circular dated July 01, 2014 of RBI on disbursement of pension by Agency banks. The bank had also defreezed the account of the Complainant. In view of the aforesaid, there did not appear to be deficiency in service on the part of the bank”. It is further stated by the OP that the contents of the complaint are not only untrue & factually incorrect but have been distorted by the Complainant. The Complainant has already been paid by the Opposite Party a sum of Rs.34,657/- on 07.04.2014 on account of interest @ 8% p.a. for the delayed payment of DA on Basic Pension for the period from 01.10.2008 to 31.10.2013. The payment was made as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India on the subject matter. Above fact of payment is duly admitted by the Complainant himself in the present complaint. The Complainant has failed to mention in the present complaint, the time period for which complainant suffered a loss of Rs.3,160/- being the excess Income tax paid due to alleged irregular and highly erratic payments made by the Opposite Party, as such, this issue also does not deserve any consideration as well as the same is also barred by limitation.

 

9.       Regarding allegations of the Complainant for non-completion of the pass book and non-availability of the Statement of Accounts, the OP has clarified that the custody of Pension Pass Book always remains with the Pensioner/account holder who produces it to the pension paying branch of the bank for its updation from time to time.  In case, pensioner does not produce the Pension Pass Book for its timely updation, negligence cannot be attributed to the pension paying branch. In the present case also, pension payment entries in Pensioner’s pension Pass Book were made, when produced by the pensioner for its updation as could be observed from pages 14 & 15 of pension pass book of the pensioner annexed as Annexure 2 by the Complainant with the present complaint. Further,  it is wrong to say that the verification could not be done by the Complainant until the “Statement of Account”, in lieu of pass book, was provided to him, in 2012. The OP has stated that since the Complainant is a very highly educated, qualified and learned person, it is unbelievable that he could not do the verification for long period of 12 years i.e. from 2001 to 2012.  In the present case, Saving Bank Pass Book, has been issued to the Complainant by the Opposite Party, which has been annexed as a part of Annexure-3, (Pages 19 to 24) by the Complainant with his present Complainant & the same was updated from the time to time, providing the details of transactions made in the complainant account. The Complainant has also made ‘cash’ or transfer transactions in his Savings Bank Account from time to time and had also submitted Life Certificate each year. Therefore, the Complainant was well aware of all developments and transactions in his account.

 

10.     Regarding allegations of freezing of the account, the OP  has also stated that excess pension arrears on account of VI Pay Commission were paid to the pensioner’s account and therefore, account was temporarily freezed and subsequently the account was reactivated as soon as the issue of excess payment was settled. All representations made by Complainant to the Opposite Party or its higher authorities were duly responded to, but the Complainant continued with his unreasonable and unjustified demands.

 

11.     While furnishing the detailed reply to the complaint, the OP has also submitted calculation sheet indicating the paid/payable amount and applicable interest rate for the period from January 2001 to June 2013 which also reflected that the payment of Rs.1,35,284/- was paid short for the period from January 2001 to December 2007 for which the bank has also paid 8% on the accumulative balance of payment. Further, an amount of Rs.2,66,023/- has also paid in excess for which 4 % interest has been charged/recovered by the bank.

 

12.     Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence/arguments putforth by both the parties and it has been observed that:-

1. Regarding allegations of the Complainant for non-completion of the pass book and non-availability of the Statement of Accounts, the  complainant could not furnish any satisfactory reason for not getting his pass-book updated during the year 2001 to 2012  for which he started writing  complaints on 7-12-2011 whereas the OP has rightly contended that the custody of Pension Pass Book always remains with the Pensioner/account holder who produces it to the pension paying branch of the bank for its updation from time to time.  In case, pensioner does not produce the Pension Pass Book for its timely updation, negligence cannot be attributed to the pension paying branch. Since the Complainant is a very educated, qualified and learned person, it is unbelievable that he could not do the verification for long period of 12 years i.e. from 2001 to 2012. The Complainant has also made ‘cash’ or transfer transactions in his Savings Bank Account from time to time and had also submitted Life Certificate each year by visiting the Bank personally. Therefore, the Complainant was well aware of all developments and transactions in his account.

 

2. Regarding allegations of freezing of the account, the clarification furnished by the OP appears reasonable that excess pension arrears on account of VI Pay Commission were paid to the pensioner’s account and therefore, account was temporarily freezed and was defreezed after settling this issue. Moreover, the complainant also failed to prove as to whether he had faced any inconvenience or loss due to freezing of account.

 

3. The Banking Ombudsman has also disposed off the complaint against the Complainant on these issues.

 

4. The excess payment of income tax by the complainant was his own decision and he was also at liberty to adjust the excess paid income tax in the next assessment year.

 

5. The calculation sheet furnished by the Bank was also supplied to the complainant but he could not furnish any suitable rebuttal towards the calculation prepared by the bank. The calculation sheet furnished by the bank has also been perused and it has been noticed that the payment of Rs.1,35,284/- was paid short during the period from January 2001 to December 2007 for which the bank has also paid 8% on the accumulative balance of payment whereas on the excess paid amount of Rs.2,66,023/- from January 2008 to June 2013, the Bank has charged/recovered 4% interest. Besides, the complainant has still been paid Rs.159370/- in excess as per following details:-

 

 

Actual amount  paid from 1st January, 2001 to December, 2007   Actual Amount paid from January, 2008 to June, 2013   Total (A)	Rs.3,36,894/-     Rs.6,65,319/-
	Rs.10,02,213/-
Actual amount of basic pension payable with applicable DA from 01.01.2001 to December, 2007   Actual amount of basic pension payable with applicable DA from January, 2008 to June, 2013   Total (B)	Rs.4,72,178/-       Rs.3,99,296/-
	Rs.8,71,474/-
Excess amount paid (A-B) = AAA		Rs.1,30,739/-
Interest payable @ 8% on accumulative balance from January, 2001 to December, 2007 (AA)   Interest charged/ recovered @ 4% on accumulative excess amount paid  from January, 2008 to June, 2013  (BB)     Net Interest payable after  adjustment of interest (AA-BB) =AB	Rs.35,080/-
	Rs.29,054/-
	Rs.6,026/-
Interest already paid on 07.03.2014=CC	Rs.34,657/-
Excess amount paid on account of interest by the bank (CC-AB) =BBB		Rs.28,631/-
Net excess amount paid by the bank to the Complainant (AAA + BBB)		Rs.1,59,370/-

 

13.     In view of the above facts, the OP bank cannot be held responsible for deficiency in providing service and harassment to the complainant. We, therefore, are not inclined to allow this complaint. The complaint is dismissed.

 

14.     Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                       Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

    ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                              DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

                                Member                                                                            President       

               DCDRC-1 (North)                                                               DCDRC-1 (North)