Punjab

StateCommission

A/1122/2015

Central Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurcharan Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Mohinder Singh

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1122 of 2015

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 12.10.2015

                                                          Order Reserved on: 13.02.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:   14.02.2017

 

Central Bank of India, through its Chairman/Managing Director, service through its Branch Office G.T Road, Beas, District Amritsar through authorized signatory Sh. Sukhraj.

 

 

                                                                        Appellant/Opposite party       

              Versus

 

Gurcharan Singh son of Sh. Dalip Singh, resident of G.T Road, Beas, District Amritsar

 

                                                                     Respondent/Complainant

 

First Appeal against order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Amritsar.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.J.S Gill, Member

         

Present:-

          For appellant                : Sh.Mohinder Singh, Advocate

          For respondent            : Sh.Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

         J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant directed this appeal against order dated 01.09.2015 of District Forum Amritsar, directing the appellant to refund the entire amount, which has been debited to the pension account no. 1597024014 of the complainant with regard to the outstanding loan amount of Jasbir Singh and Gursharan Kaur within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to pay litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-. The complainant has challenged the order of District Forum in filing the appeal. The respondent of this appeal is complainant in the original complaint before District Forum Amritsar and appellant of this appeal is OP therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that complainant has account no.1597024014 with OP with regard to his pension account. OP debited Rs.7900/- against payment of loan of some other account, wherein complainant was the guarantor. The complainant approached OP and requested it to collect the above amount from the original borrower because the amount of the complainant in the account was pension account of the complainant. The pension is credited to the account of the complainant. The OP ignored the provisions of pension Act in this regard. The act of OP is alleged to be deficient in service and unfair trade practice by the complainant. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint directing OP to refund the entire amount from the aforesaid pension account of the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and litigation expenses as well.

3.      Upon notice, OP/Bank filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. It was averred in preliminary objections that complainant stood, as a guarantor for the loan advanced to Jasbir Singh and Gursharan Kaur, who are the son and daughter-in-law of the complainant respectively. The complainant gave letter of authority to OP that in case of any default in the repayment or overdue installments, the amount be deducted from his bank account and be treated as his standing instructions. The complainant also gave account no. 1597024014 in the said letter of authority. So whatever the amount has been deducted from the account of the complainant, the same has been deducted as per instructions and undertaking given by the complainant. The Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. The complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The complaint is alleged to be malicious in nature. On merits, this fact was admitted that complainant was holding  account no. 1597024014 with OP. This fact was denied that complainant is consumer of OP. The OP contested the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copy of documents Ex.C-2.  As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Varinder Kumar Branch Manager of Central Bank of India Ex.OP-1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-4. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Amritsar accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 01.09.2015. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Amritsar dated 01.09.2015, opposite party now appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.

6.      Pleadings of both the parties have been duly appreciated by us in this appeal. Ex.C-1 is affidavit of the complainant on the record with regard to the averments on oath, as pleaded in the complaint. Ex.C-2 is copy of account no. 1597024014 of complainant. To refute this evidence, OP produced on record affidavit of Varinder Kumar Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, vide Ex.OP-1. Ex.OP-2 is loan agreement executed by Jasbir Singh and Gursharan Kaur. Letter of guarantee executed by the complainant is Ex.OP-3 and letter of authority is Ex.OP-4 on the record. The District Forum returned the finding that undoubtedly, complainant stood guarantor for repayment of loan of Jasbir Singh and Gursharan Kaur, as the amount pertained to his pension and hence the same could not have been deducted towards that end. The complainant has been repeatedly supplicating the OPs for refund the amount, but to no effect as observed by District Forum in this regard.

          Section 11 of the Pension Act 1871 is relevant provision of law, which lays down as under:-

          11. Exemption of pension from attachment : No pension     granted or continued by Government on political   considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance, and no money    due or to become due on account of any such pension or    allowances, shall be liable to seizure, attachment or          sequestration by process of any court at the instance of a           creditor, for any demand against the pensioner, or in       satisfaction of a decree or order of any such court.

          This section applies also to pensions granted or continued      after the separation of Burma from India, by the Government of    Burma.

It is, thus, plain from perusal of Section 11 of the Act that no pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance, and no money due or to become due on account of any such pension or allowances, shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any court at the instance of a creditor, for any demand against the pensioner, or in satisfaction of a decree or order of any such court.

7.      The counsel for the appellant referred to judgment of Madras High Court in writ petition no. 19096 of 2011 titled as Lalita Raj versus The Assistant General Manager and others contending that the bank has the legitimate right of general lien and lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. He submitted that once the amount has been deposited in the saving bank account of the complainant from pension, then it can be attached as per above authority. We find that Section 11 of Pension Act, 1871 is mandatory in nature making it specifically clear that no pension granted or continued by the Government shall be liable to attachment or seizure, attachment or sequestration by the process of any court at the instance of a creditor. Herein, this amount was in the bank account of the complainant and it was pension amount and this fact remains undisputed between the parties. We find that Madras High Court judgment that bank can exercise the general lien of Section 171 of Indian Contract Act would not be attracted in this case. Pension Act 1871 is special act and it would override the general lien of the bank conferred by Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. Pension is basically meant for survival of the person in his old age as a recompense for the past services rendered by him. Pension Act has been enacted with a social object to protect the interest of the aged persons. Consequently, we are in agreement with the findings of the District Forum and affirm the order of the District Forum in this appeal. The OP bank is at liberty to proceed against the other assets of the complainant for recovery of amount of the complainant on the basis of guarantee deed undertaken by complainant.

8.      As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed by affirming the order of District Forum Amritsar dated 01.09.2015 under challenge in this appeal.

9.      The appellant no.1 had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.1,42,000/- in compliance of the order of this Commission, vide receipt dated 18.02.2016. The amount due as per order of District Forum be remitted to the complainant with interest accrued thereon whereas the other amounts with interest accrued thereon be remitted to the appellant no.1 by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.

10     Arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

                                                                              (J.S GILL)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

                                                                                                         

February 14,  2017                                                             

(ravi)