BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.409  of 2022

      Date of Instt. 09.11.2022

      Date of Decision: 18.11.2022

S. C. Khanna age 81, residentof House No.W. B. 248, Ali Mohalla, Jalandhar (Mobile 90415-64681).

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       DRM Ferozepur

2.       Sr. Welfare Inspector (Railways), Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Complainant in Person.

Order

Jyotsna (Member)

1.                This complaint presented before us for consideration on the point of admission of the complaint.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

                   1. Said complaint has been filed on the directions of RBI.

                   2. Arrears paid Rs.1,40,862/-.

                   3. Judgment, “No deficiency by bank means OP is                                      responsible, repeated twice.

Deficiency: OP sent PPO to Bank after 5 years as proved by RBI.

Prayer:         An interest of 18% from 01.01.2016 to 13.02.2021 be paid.

                   Litigation plus harassment charges as per the discretion of                  Bench.

3.       We have heard the complainant in her person on the point of admission and also gone through the case file very minutely.

4.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant wherein it is alleged that the OP sent PPO to bank after five years as proved by RBI. The complainant is a retired person from
Railway. The complainant filed complaint before Ombudsman and the complaint has been closed under clause 16 (2) (a) of the Reserve Bank-Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, which reads as that the complaint is rejected under Clause 16 (2) (a) of the Reserve Bank- Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021 in the opinion of the Ombudsman, there is no deficiency in service. So, accordingly, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try this complaint as it relates to pension, which is a service matter. There are separate social Tribunals to deal with such matters. He did not buy anything for consideration from OPs nor hired or availed services of OPs for consideration. The matter is between the employer and the employee. Therefore, this Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and to hear this complaint and accordingly, the same is returned to the complainant for filing the same before the appropriate Forum/Court. Original complaint alongwith original documents be returned to the complainant after retaining the photocopies of the same.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

18.11.2022         Member                          Member           President