ORDER
(Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member):
This appeal, under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 25.09.2014 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 238 of 2013. By the impugned order the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite parties (jointly or separately) and directed the opposite parties to pay an interest @ 9% per annum for a period of 5½ years on arrear amount of Rs. 2,97,599/- alongwith Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation within 30 days from the date of the order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that based on 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, the pension of the Lieutenant Colonels was revised in May, 2009 and the revised pension was made effective w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and arrears so accrued where to be cleared in two installments within a period of six months viz by the end of the year 2009. That the complainant was having his account in the State Bank of India, Cantt. Branch, Lucknow and the pension was remitted through this Branch, but the said branch neither paid the revised pension correctly nor cleared the arrears, as per the directions despite repeated reminders. Further, the complainant is entitled to disability pension (40%), but since the inception of the Centralized Pension Processing Centers in the S.B.I. Banks of India, payment of the disability pension of the complainant was stopped by the S.B.I., Cantt. Branch, Lucknow and the CPPC, Allahabad. The non-payment of correct revised pension, pending arrears and the disability pension was reported to the Manager of S.B.I., Cantt. Branch, Lucknow and the CPPC, Allahabad time and again, but to no effect. In the meantime, the complainant had to shift to Dehradun and got the account transferred to S.B.I., Vasant Vihar (4707), Dehradun in the month of August, 2010, which gets the pension of retired defense personnel through CPPC, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The continuous and regular effort of writing to all concerned in the S.B.I. Bank and even to the Chairman of the S.B.I. for regularizing the payment pension did not prove fruitful. Finally the complainant referred the matter of non-payment of correct pension to the Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India in May, 2011, who allotted reference No. DGP/B/2071/00088 (4) S.B.I. to the case and took prompt action. Thereafter, the CPPC, Chandni Chowk, Delhi forwarded a revised pension arrear sheet for payment of an adhoc amount of Rs. 95,910/- which was credited on 17.05.2011. On detailed scrutiny later, it was found that the amount should have been Rs. 1,30,294/-, as the Lucknow Bank has been actually paying less than recommended by CPPC, Allahabad. The amount actually paid by the Bank at Lucknow is less than shown by CPPC, Allahabad on their statement. This is authenticated by the entries made by the Lucknow Bank in the Bank Pass Book, issued by them. Further an accumulated amount of Rs. 2,97,599/-, arrear of disability pension was also credited in the complainant’s account on 14.06.2011. This amount was held by the bank for over 5½ years and, thus, owe compound interest, admissible to senior citizen, to the complainant. The complainant has been writing to the opposite parties for payment of arrear of Rs. 34,384/- and the interest on the accumulated amount of Rs. 2,97,599/- from December, 2011 to April, 2013, but the payment has not been done. That based on the above, the complainant is entitled for payment of Rs. 34,384/-, arrear by the opposite parties and payment of compound interest on Rs. 2,97,599/- for a period of 5½ years by the opposite parties and also entitled for Rs. 1,00,000/- causing mental agony and harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of proceedings.
3. The opposite parties have filed written statement before the District Forum, Dehradun (paper No. 11kh/2 on the District Forum’s record) and pleaded that an amount of Rs. 95,910/- was rightly credited in the complainant’s account, for which a statement has also filed on the record. It is admitted to the opposite parties that the arrear amount of Rs. 2,97,599/- was credited on 14.06.2011 in the complainant’s account, which was effective from 01.01.2006.
4. The District Forum on an appreciation of the material on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 25.09.2014 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties-appellants have filed the present appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties has submitted before this Commission that the District Forum did not appreciate the fact that there was no delay in payment of arrears of pension to the complainant-respondent. Because the pension was revised as per Circular dated 18.03.2011 retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the amount of arrears was credited to the complainant’s account on 14.06.2011. The amount of arrears for the period of 5½ years was paid in less than 03 months from the date of circular for revision. The District Forum did not appreciate the fact that the payment of arrears was made in pursuance of Circular dated 18.03.2011 and, therefore, there was no question of payment of interest w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The District Forum has also did not appreciate the fact that the respondent was not a consumer of the appellants in respect of the payment of pension. The liability to pay the pension to the complainant was that of Union of India/Central Government. The bank was only disbursing the amount as per directions of the Government. There was no consumer dispute between the parties and, therefore, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The disputes relating to pension are not consumer disputes.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has submitted that the State Bank of India is a service provider and is responsible for disbursement of amount to the respondent and, therefore, the respondent is a consumer of the bank and the District Forum has jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter.
8. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent is a retired Lt. Col. There is also no dispute that the pension of the retired Lt. Col. was revised in May, 2009 and the revised pension was made effective w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the arrears so accrued to be cleared in two installments within a period of 06 months by the end of the year 2009. It is admitted to the respondent that the amount of Rs. 2,97,599/- as disability pension was credited in his account on 14.06.2011 after a period of 5½ years of implication of the 6th Central Pay Commission. The only dispute is with the fact that whether the respondent is entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on disability pension arrear of Rs. 2,97,599/- for 5½ years or not?, and whether the amount of Rs. 34,384/- credited in the respondent’s account is correct or not?
9. So far the payment of arear of Rs. 34,384/- by the State Bank of India-appellants, the S.B.I. has produced the statements before the District Forum alongwith letter dated 29.08.2013 (paper No. 21), which was addressed to the District Consumer Forum, Dehradun. In the said letter, the S.B.I., Vasant Vihar, Dehradun Branch has expressed that the amount of Rs. 95,910/- was paid to the respondent on 17.05.2011 and all dues payable to the respondent-Lt. Col. Sh. G.S. Chauhan (Retd.) already paid as per enclosed sheet (paper No. 22) and no dues pending for the same. Enclosed sheet indicates that the S.B.I. has paid Rs. 95,910/- to the respondent as 6th Pay Commission Pension Arrear payable w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The District Forum, on the basis of the letter dated 29.08.2013 of S.B.I. alongwith enclosed sheet, has rightly observed that the bank has paid the amount of pension arrear payable w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to the respondent. Now it is to be seen whether the respondent is entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum for the period of 5½ years on Rs. 2,97,599/- as arrear of disability pension being senior citizen. The appellants have submitted that the payment of arrears of disability pension to the respondent was made in pursuance of Circular dated 18.03.2011 and, therefore, there was no question of payment of interest w.e.f. 01.01.2006. On the basis of 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, the bank disbursed the arrear on 14.06.2011 on the basis of Circular dated 18.03.2011 and this amount of arrear was credited to the respondent’s account. In this way, the amount of arrears for the period of 5½ years was paid in less than 03 months from the date of Circular for revised arrear of pension. The District Forum below has not appreciated the fact that for payment of arrears of pension a circular was issued by the Central Government on 18.03.2011 and in pursuance of this circular, the S.B.I. disbursed the amount of arrears of pension within three months’ time. The liability to pay the pension to the respondent was that of Union of India/Central Government. The bank was only disbursing the amount as per directions of the Central Government.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (Dr.) vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors.; III (2013) CPJ 22 (SC). In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a Government servant cannot raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any constituted Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Government servant does not fall under the definition of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such Government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that the appropriate Forum for redressal of any of his grievances may be State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act.
11. We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. After going through the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision given in the case of “Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (Dr.) vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors. (supra), we are of the view that the District Forum had made a gross legal error by entertaining the consumer complaint filed by the complainant–respondent. In its written statement, the appellants had pleaded that the respondent is a pensioner of Central Government and he is not a “consumer” of the Bank. The District Forum has failed to make a view on this point in its judgment. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant-respondent was not maintainable before the District Forum and hence the impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.09.2014 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 238 of 2013 is dismissed, as being not maintainable before the District Forum. However, as per the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision, the respondent will be at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/Court for redressal of his grievances. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)
