Presented by Sri P.N.Dash, President.

The Complainant filed a complaint case against the Opposite Parties on Dt.13/08/2010 by alleging deficiency in their services on the ground that he is a retired school teacher living solely on the revised pension amount for his livelihood which he receive through Opposite Parties and the same was delayed for five months, hence he filed the case against the Opposite Parties as the law for quick service is in favour of him yet since then form the date of filing the case till to-day the arrear amounts in accordance with 6^th revised pay scale which came in to force since Dt.01/01/2006 along with interest there on should be entitled to get by him from the Opposite Parties along with damaged compensation of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only with appropriate litigation cost claimed by him for the sake of justice. The Complainant filed xerox copies of all relevant documents which are verified and found to be true.

The case of the Opposite Parties are that Opposite Party No.1(one) is the local Treasury Officer at Bargarh who has sole duty to communicate the matter of revised pay scale to the Opposite Party No.2(two) the local State Bank of India, Branch Manager for disbursing the amount to the Complainant by paying the pension along with arrear amounts to him. Opposite Party No.1(one) has done his duty effectively hence liability on his part on deficiency ground is not occurred, as stated by the Opposite Party No.1(one). Opposite Party No.2(two) is the Manager, local State Bank of India branch responsible for disbursing the pension amount through his bank to the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3(three) is the C.P.P.C. (Centralized Pension Processing Centre) at Bhubaneswar, a specialized branch of Opposite Party No.2(two) particularly deals on the matter of accounting of pensioners and Opposite Party No.4(four) is the General Manager of State Bank of India local head office, at Bhubaneswar responsible for general administration of the Bank for the whole state. Opposite Party No.1(one) is represented by the local Accounts Officer who stated that no deficiency in his service was perfuncted by him. So also Opposite Party No.2(two) to No.4(four) represented by his counsel stated that they have not done any work towards the Complainant which lead to deficiency in their services. In his submission, the counsel for Opposite Party No.2(two) to No.4(four) stated that as soon as Opposite Party No.2(two) received the information of revised pay scale he intimated it to the Opposite Party No.3(three) for an expert scrutiny so also intimated the matter to the Complainant. So deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.2(two) does not arised. As the Opposite Party No.3(three) is a specialized branch of the state on a particular matter of accounting of pensions of the pensioners of the whole state inspite of well equipped computerized devices and a good office yet the said office is over burdened with work load and for that cause 4(four) to 5(five) months delay is not a genuine ground but an act of practicality. Hence deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.3(three) also not arised. Opposite Party No.4(four) is the General Manager of Govt. Business Department, State Bank of India local Head Office at Bhubaneswar. As he is engaged for general administration of the Bank for the whole state and as Opposite Party No.3(three) is engaged for the specific job, Opposite Party No.4(four) is not responsible for the latches as stated by the counsel. So Opposite Party No.2(two) to No.4(four) are not responsible for any deficiency in their part. In their support Opposite Party No.2(two) to No.4(four) has filed xerox copies of Bank statements (not verified) where as Opposite Party No.1(one) has filed the documents which are verified and found to be true.

Heard the counsels, perused the record and the Forum settled the following issues. Those are as such:-

1. Whether the case is within the time limit and within the territorial jurisdiction ?

2. Whether the revised pay scale sanctioned by the Government authority infavour of the Complainant and from which date to be effected ?

3. Whether the Opposite Party No.1(one) received the same information from the Government authority in proper time and the said information was transmitted to the Opposite Party No.2(two) in proper time ?

4. Whether the Opposite Party No.2(two) was received the same information regarding the revised pension of the Complainant and was transmitted to the Opposite Party No.3(three) subsequently with a quick action and promptness ?

5. Whether Opposite Party No.3(three) received the information about revised pension in proper time from Opposite Party No.2(two) and discharged his duties in proper time without any deficiency in service towards the Complainant on his part ?

6. Whether Opposite Party No.4(four) is responsible jointly and severally for the deficiency in service on his part towards the Complainant ?

7. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation from Opposite Parties on the ground of deficiency in services in their services towards him and to how much the amount should be ?

8. Whether the Complainant is entitled for pendentelite interest ?

9. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any litigation cost ?

The Forum comes to such findings by probing into the matter. Those are as such:-

Issue No.1. The case is filed within the time limit. So also the case is filed within the time limit of arosed of 'cause of action' on Dt.06/07/2010, on the date when the Complainant filed a written complaint to the Opposite Party No.2(two). The case is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. Complainant is the 'esteem customer' of the Opposite Parties, hence 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 entitled to file the case. Issue No.1(one) is disposed of accordingly.

Issue No.2. In persuance the Govt. decision to revise the pensionary benefits with effects from Dt.01/01/2006 as per G.O.F.D. Notification S.R.O. No. 638/2008 the petitioner is entitled for pension at the revised rate. Accordingly the G.O.F.D. Resolution No. Pen-181/08-3653/F Dt.19/01/2009 was issued to Bargarh District Treasury Office. Issue No.2(two) is disposed of accordingly.

Issue No. 3. The Opposite Party No.1(one)(Treasury Office) after receiving the sanction letter remitted the same to Opposite Party No.2(two) (local State Bank of India, Branch) for payment. The Opposite Party No.1(one) remitted the pay order within three days i.e. 31/03/2010 of the receipt of the sanction letter. The Opposite Party No.1(one) despatched the letter of information to the Opposite Party No.2(two) in proper time, hence deficiency in his part is not proved. Issue No.3(three) is disposed of accordingly.

Issue No.4. Paras 1(one), 2(two) and No.3(three) of the Complaint petition is admitted by all the Opposite Parties except Opposite Party No.1(one). Disputes lies on para 4(four), 5(five) and 6(six) of the Complaint petition in between the parties and there are counter to these effects. Opposite Party No.1(one) conveyed the matter to Opposite Party No.2(two) on the 3^rd day in accordance with the law of Treasury for a comply of the matter which the Opposite Party No.2(two) is disagreed. Opposite Party No.2(two) has not perfuncted his duty properly in time. Report of the Office of the Accountant General (A & E), Orissa, Bhubaneswar despatched by Sr. Accounts Officer, Orissa, dated Nil to the Treasury Officer/Bargarh revealed that the revised pension Rs.  6,750/-(Rupees six thousand seven hundred fifty)only + T.I. will come into effect from Dt.01/06/2006 and the total arrear amount is Rs.  13,500/-(Rupees thirteen thousand five hundred) only as the total pensionary benefits and the Opposite Party No.2(two) received the same on Dt. 31/03/2010 vide memo No. 963.

Office of the Director, Elementary Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar issued a letter vide No.10406/Dt.04/09/2009 through its Director, Elementary Education, Orissa, stated in para 3(three) that 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum for the period of delay and this interest shall be recovered from pension sanctioning authority and other pensons responsible.

Government of Orissa, P.G and Pension Administration Department issued circular letter vide letter No. Pen-6/2009 2316(210)/P.G. and P.A. Dt.10/08/2009 through its Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government to all Heads of the Departments/Collectors revealed that 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum for the period of delay and this interest shall be recovered from Pension Sanctioning Authority and other persons responsible.

The Treasury Officer, Bargarh issued a letter from his officer vide letter No. 2743/Dt.26/08/210 to the President of the District Forum that:-

1. The Complainant has drawing pension against PPO No.362517 up to Dt.30/11/2006 from his Treasury.

2. The pension case of the Complainant (PPO No.362517) has been transferred to the State Bank of India, Bargarh (Opposite Party No.2(two) on application vide Memo No.5567 Dt.16/12/2006 for payment.

3. Pension revision authority of Complainant received vide A.G. No. Pen-12-PR-230/06-07-3685 Rev-403/09-10 has also been sent to the State Bank of India, Bargarh (Opposite Party No.2(two) vide Memo No. 963 Dt.31/03/2010 for payment. It revealed that Opposite Party No.1(one) sent the information to Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt.31/03/2010.

In his submission Opposite Party No.2(two) did not say anything about that he was not informed about the matter by the Opposite Party No.1(one), hence Opposite Party No.2(two) has not discharged his onus effectively.

The letter issued by Opposite Party No.2(two) vide letter No. 50/316 Dt.11/08/2010 to the Asst. General Manager, Network-II, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhubaneswar ( Associate of Opposite Party No.4(four)) stated that the revised pension payment order of Accountant General, Orissa, Bhubaneswar No. 3685 Dt.22/03/2010 received through Treasury Officer, Bargarh has been sent to C.P.P.C., Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3(three) vide this branch (Opposite Party No.2(two)) letter No. 50/125 Dt.05/04/2010. But no action has yet been taken to pay the arrear amount to the Complainant. The Complainant received from the Complaint was forwarded to C.P.P.C., Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3(three) vide letter No. 50/271 Dt.16/07/2010.

The same revealed that Opposite Party No.2(two) advised the Complainant to pursue the matter to Chief Mananger (C.P.P.C.), Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3(three)) to pay the arrear pension amount w.e.f. Dt.01/06/2006 as well as in revised rate in current month.

The documents revealed that Opposite Party No.2(two) has received the information from Opposite Party No.1(one) (through A.G. Orissa, letter NO. 3685/22/03/2010) and the same was transmitted by Opposite Party No.2(two) to Opposite Party No.3(three) on Dt.05/04/2010 vide letter No. 50/125. So Opposite Party No.2(two) discharged his duties on Dt.05/04/2010 and on dt.16/07/2010 by sending the complaint petition of the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.3(three) on Dt.16/07/2010. Till to the date of Dt.11/08/2010 the Opposite Party No.2(two) put the Complainant at dark. The Complainant received the letter No.50/316 Dt.11/08/2010 at a later stage after filing the case.

The Complainant's submission at the Forum which stated that after the case was filed on Dt.13/08/2010 the Opposite Party No.2(two) made a correspondence vide letter No. 50/316 putting date on 11/08/2010 and advised the petitioner to pursue his matter before Chief Manager (C.P.P.C.), Bhubaneswar and the letter reached the petitioner on Dt.08/09/2010 through his addres is yet at a distance of 7(seven) Kms from his place of residing i.e. at Bargarh. Moreover the postal seal has been made illegible intentionally. Again on Dt.30/08/2010 a letter NO. 57/79 dated 30/08/2010 was received by the Petitioner on the same date. Perused the documents and it revealed that both the letters are self-explanatory of the attitude of the Opposite Party No.2(two). The very letter issued by Opposite Party No.2(two) boost the genuineness of the case of the Complainant. That's why Opposite Party No.2(two) to No.4(four) objected vehemently the impleadment of Opposite Party No.4(four) as a party on the ground that latches on their part is proved by the said letter. Tempering the postal seal and servicing delay the coveated letter which is an ample proof of the latches of the Opposite Party No.2(two) to No.4(four) established the case of deficiency and malafide intention on the part of the Opposite Parties.

The letter issued by Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Bargarh vide letter NO. 57/79 Dt.30/08/2010 issued to the Complainant which revealed that an amount of Rs. 64,600/-(Rupees sixty four thousand six hundred)only has been credited to the account of Complainant on Dt.30/08/2010 towards the arrear pension amount and the regular revised pension amounts are being paid from August-2010 which revealed that the Opposite Party No.2(two) admitted the claim of the Complainant. Moreover in para 2(two) of the same letter he invited the Complainant to discuss on the matter of disputes to an another date revealed that Opposite Party No.2(two) has not sought out the matter promptly by hanging it, which is a sure case of deficiency in service on his part. Issue No.4(four) is disposed of accordingly.

Issue No.5. The letter NO. 50/316 Dt.11/08/2010 issued by the Opposite Party No.2(two) to the Opposite Party No.4(four) stated that Opposite Party No.3(three) (C.P.P.C.) Bhubaneswar received the information at a belated stage and the version of the Opposite party No.2(two) and No.4(four) revealed that Opposite Party No.3(three) has not discharge his duties promptly and properly in time. Para 8(eight) of the version by the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) revealed that latches lies on the Opposite Party No.3(three). Opposite Party No.3(three) admitted his latches there and argued infavour of him on the ground of heavy work load. But Opposite Party No.3(three) is a specialized branch meant for a specific purpose, equipped with ultramodern devices which are meant for quick relief in a computerized day. Heavy work load is not a ground in a computerized as well as men- powered office in a present days world where the old pensioners live in a penury and in desertation aloofing themselves from their nears and dears, a modern days malady of gerentology which is an irony of lives. The Complainant suffered a lot in absence of only pension amount which is a beacon of his life. The concerned Bank unit may have voluminous work but not at the cost of the esteemed customer which the Complainant faced. The submission of the Complainant that the State Bank of India (Opposite Parties) remitted heavy amount as hired purchase from the customers for their services and the Opposite Parties benefited to the crores. Lakhs of pensioner's case of the state are deal by the Opposite Party No.3(three) in this regard and in most of the cases the pensioners get the relieves. But it is an unique case, a special case where the Complainant is a victim of the latches of the Opposite Parties. So an unique case it should get a special priority to be solved by the authorities.

The submission of the Complainant at the Forum and his statement in his complaint petition repeatedly echoed a thing that inspite of several requests to the Opposite Party No.2(two) and Opposite Party No.3(three) through verbally and through writings they did not listen anything of the Complainant. It is a 'cry in the wilderness' Complainant filed a bill of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, No. MR 48, serial No. 107 where he paid Rs.  61/-(Rupees sixty one)only as to the Inland telegram sent to Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3(three) reveals that the Complainant was harassed by the Opposite Party No.3(three) several times and later the Complainant has sent a telegram to that effect to the Opposite Party No.3(three). Complainant in his complainant petition and in his submission boosted the matter. Ref. Letter NO. 50/125 Dt.05/04/2010 of State Bank of India, Bargarh also support the cause of the Complainant. The pleader notice issued by the Complainant on Dt.06/07/2010 to the Opposite Party No.3(three) also proved the case of the Complainant, as because the same was received by the Opposite Party No.3(three) and was not replied by him which proved the stand of the Complainant. It is a settled principle of law thatl reported in AIR 1964 S.C. Page 538 that amount to admission of the notice is amount to admission of facts contents in that notice. Hence, according to that principle the Opposite parties admitted the facts of the notice. No-reply to the pleader notice put an adverse inference on the part of the Opposite Party No.3(three) (C.P.P.C., Bhubaneswar)

So latches lies on the Opposite Party No.3(three). Instead of sought out the problem through amicable settlement he contested the case till to the end, which is a malafide stand. Issue No.5(five) is disposed of accordingly.

Issue No. 6. Opposite Party No.4(four) is the head of the State Bank of India at state level and administration of the entire State Banks of India within the state lies on him. He is the administrative head of the Opposite Party No.2(two). The letter No. 50/316 Dt.11/08/2010 issued by Opposite Party No.2(two) to Opposite Party No.4(four) revealed the nexus between them. Opposite Party No.4(four) is a 'necessary party' in this case having more legal footing then a 'party in proper'. Opposite Party No.4(four) along with Opposite Party No.3(three) replied to the matter to the Complainant after the case was filed at this Forum which indicated a malafide intention on their part. Version of Opposite Party No.3(three) and No.4(four) stated that Complainant is not known to them is not a true fact, hence not sustainable in the eye of law. So Opposite Party No.4(four) is jointly and severally responsible and to discharge his onus along with Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three). Issue No.6(six) is disposed of accordingly.

Issue No.7. The Complainant is entitled to get the benefits of disbursement of revised pension amounts which came into force w.e.f. Dt.01/01/2006 till to the date along with pendentelite interests there on and with compensation for deficiency in their services from Opposite Party No.2(two) to No.4(four) with litigation cost. Opposite Party No.1(one) is not liable for any deficiency in is part, as because he sent the information along with documents of revised pension of the Complainant to Opposite Party No.2(two) in time. The Complainant claimed a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only, and the Forum will award in accordance with. Issue No.7(seven) is disposed of accordingly.

Issue No.8. As the Complainant has acredited Rs.  64,600/- (Rupees sixty four thousand six hundred)only to his account by the Opposite Parties which revealed from the letter NO. 57/79 Dt.30/08/2010 filed by the complainant, it proved that the Complainant has received the said maount after filing the case. Hence no arrear pension amount stand infavour of the Complainant. As in his memo of argument the Complainant admitted that on Dt.30/08/2010 he has received about the information of arrear payment amount of Rs. 64,600/- (Rupees sixty four thousand six hundred)only from the Opposite Party No.2(two) but did not challenge it on the ground of non-receiving the same. He did not mentione any where that he has not received the said amount. The Bank statement filed by Opposite Parties revealed that the principal amount was received by the Complainant on Dt.30/08/2010. Hence the Complainant is entitled to get pendentalite interest from Dt.01/04/2010 to Dt.30/08/2010. The Complainant is entitled for pendentelite interest in accordance with Bank (State Bank of India) fixed deposite interest rate of 9%(nine percent) per annum from Dt. 01/04/2010 to Dt.30/08/2010 (date of receiving the letter)of the amount by the Complainant. Issue No.8(eight) is disposed of accordingly.

Issue No.9. As the Opposite Party No.2(two) to No.4(four) are responsible for the latches and dragged the Complainant to file the case, the Complainant is entitled for litigation cost.

Finally, the Forum comes to a conclusion that, the Opposite Party No.2(two) to No.4(four) are jointly and severally responsible for deficiency in services in their part towards the Complainant by not disbursing the revised pension amount in proper time. Issue No.9(nine) is disposed of accordingly.

Hence ordered that, Opposite Party No.2(two) to No.4(four) are directed jointly and severally to pay 9%(nine percent) interest per annum to the Complainant on the revised pension amount Rs.  64,600/- (Rupees sixty four thousand six hundred)only from Dt.01/04/2010 to Dt.30/08/2010 as pendentelite interest along with Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as for deficiency in service on their part along with a litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only within the month from the date of Order, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest till to the date of actual realization.

The case is disposed of accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

      I agree,                                                        I agree, 

(Sri Pramath Nath Dash)                   ( Mrs Anjali Behera )

   P r e s i d e n t.                                        M e m b e r.