SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of non-release of monthly pension by the Bank authorities to the complainant-pension holder are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that complainant being a retired State Govt. of Odisha employee had a pension account at Allahabad Bank,Singiri,Aul,Dist:-Kendrapara. The pension account No. is 8969 and complainant was entitled for pension of an amount of rs.5,015/- per month. The complainant and his wife were staying at Aul with their son namely Sri Sarada Prasan Mishra, who had a R.D.Account No.1231 at the same Bank. As the son of complainant was not able to deposit monthly amount of Rs.5,000/- on the said R.D.Account and on his request complainant’s father agreed to deposit Rs.5,000/- per month in the said R.D.Account. It is revealed from the complaint petition that OP No.1 the Branch Manager suggested to the complainant while withdrawing the money that the deducted amount of the pension account be transferred to RD account of his son. Accordingly, the complainant gave a consent letter to transfer of Rs.5,000/- per month from his pension account to the RD account of his son. Complaint petition also reveals that the said RD account was matured on dtd.15.12.2009, after its maturity when complainant went to OP-Bank for withdrawal of his pension,OP No.1 refused the withdrawal and told that the monthly pension amount is diverted towards payment of loan dues of his son’s cash credit loan account No.CC2259. It is alleged that OP-Bank by not allowing to withdraw the pension amount, the complainant is going through a financial hardship and complainant has borrowed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs for different persons and he has to pay the interest on said amount on the written application for release of pension to the OP No.1-Bank in writing after maturity of the RD account on dtd.15.12.2009,OP-Bank opined that the borrower has given consent to deduct from complainant’s pension account, so the pension amount is diverted towards payment of loan dues. It is further revealed that such non-release of pension amount is an illegal act and deficiency in service on part of OP-Bank. As in spite of repeated grievances the OP No.2 the Regional Manager has not taken any step, hence OP Nol.2 is equally liable for deficiency in service. Complainant apprising this Forum states that no authority in the country is allowed to encroach the pension money even the Civil Courts are also precluded to attach the pension account of any individual as the benefit of pension relates to the survival of the individual. In the circumstances, complainant prayed this Forum to get back his pension amount of Rs.3,20,000/- with 18 per cent interest, Rs.2 lakhs for mental agony and Rs.2 lakh for loss of health of himself and his wife and Rs.1 lakh for loss of prestige in toto Rs.20,000/- only in toto Rs.8lakhs twenty thousand only.
3. Being noticed OP-Bank appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed written statement into the dispute challenging the maintainability of the complaint on grounds of limitation and no cause of action to file the complaint against the OP-Bank for non-joinder of necessary party. OP-Bank in their para wise reply submit that complainant on his own request write a letter on dtd.16.10.2007(Annexure-A) to transfer the amount of Rs.5,000/- from his pension account bearing No.8969 and credited to the RD account of complainant’s son bearing No.1231. The said RD account was kept in lien in respect of cash credit loan incurred by R.V.R. Enterprise which stood in the name of the complainant’s son. Hence, the allegation of the complainant that in persuation of OP-Bank the pension amount was deducted and transfer to OP-Bank is quite false and far from the truth. It is averred that after the maturity of the R.D.Account of the complainant’s son on dtd.15.12.2009, the complainant has never come to OP-Bank to withdraw his pension money, rather the complainant was well aware about the fact that the pension amount deducted is adjusted in the cash credit loan account of his son bearing No.C.C.2259. It is categorically submitted that OP-Bank has not adjusted the pension amount in the loan account of the complainant’s son unilaterally rather it was on the request of the complainant himself. This facts have also been intimated to the complainant in writing by the OP which shows the transperancy maintained by the OP-Bank. It is further stated that as C.C.loan of complainant’s son has not been liquidated therefore the OP-Bank diverted the pension amount towards payment of loan dues. The OP-Bank on basis of General power of lien executed by complainant on dtd.17.3.2007 in favour of the Bank have, deducted the pension amount and credited the said amount towards the liquidation of the loan. The letter lien is marked and filed into proceeding as Annexure-B. It is further submitted that the claim of the complainant for refund of Rs.3,20,000/- towards deduction of pension amount for 64 month starting from December,2009 to April,2015 does not arise at all as the said transfer/deduction of pension amount and its adjustment on loan accounts are consented by the complainant. In the above facts and circumstances, the Ops submit that they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice rather they have acted as per the instructions of the complainant and the complaint is devoid of merit and is liable to ber dismissed.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties on their respective complaint and written statement also examined the documents filed by parties. Complainant filed Xerox copies of documents into the dispute. OP-Bank filed documents as per the Annexures mentioned in written statement. That apart an affidavit is filed by complainant,OP-Bank on receipt of the affidavit filed an Examination in cross which was replied by the complainant. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant is a retired state govt. employee and pension account holder bearing account no. 8969. Complainant’s son namely Sarada Prasan Mishra had a R.D.Account on OP-Bank bearing No.1231. It is also admitted that complainant’s son availed a cash credit loan to run his business in the name and style as R.V.R. Enterprises and the said loan account No. is 2259. It is also admitted that on consent of complainant Rs.5,000/- was deducted per month from the complainant’s pension account and same was deposited/transferred to R.D.Account No.1231 which belongs to the complainant’s son Sarada Prasan Mishra. It is further admitted that after maturity of the said R.D. account in the year 2009 the pension amount of Rs.5,000/- was deducted, continuously from the complainant’s pension account till the year 2015.
The dispute/allegation to be decided by this Forum that whether the OP-Bank has lawfully deducted the amount of Rs.5,000/- from complainant’s pension account after the maturity of R.D.Account No.1231 which stands in the name of the complainant’s son and which was mortgaged against cash credit loan availed by the complainant’s son where the complainant stood as a guarantor ?
Before discussing the above disputed points, we do not want to interfere in the procedures adopted by OP-Bank regarding deduction of pension amount to Rs.5,000/- of a retired employee whose total pension amount as per the complaint petition is Rs.5,015/- to be deducted and credited in the RD account of complainant’s son and the legality of keeping a RD account as mortgaged and as the same was consented as per Annexure-A and when the complaint is silent regarding such allegations. The allegations of the complainant in respect of not allowing the complainant to withdraw the money from pension amount on his pension account No.8969 after maturity of the RD account on or after dtd.15.12.2009 till April,2015 which was kept mortgaged in the cash credit loan of the complainant’s son. The OP-Bank countered the allegations on two grounds the first ground is on the written consent of the complainant dtd. 16.10.2007(Annexure-A) and the second point is as the complainant stood as a guarantor to the said cash credit loan of complainant’s son bearing No.2259 and invoking the power of general lien executed by complainant’s son in favour of the OP-Bank(Annexure-B), OP-Bank adjusted the monthly pension account of the complainant in the cash credit loan account as the loan was not liquidated and basing on Annexure-A after the maturity of the R.D.account.
In the present dispute importance has been given to the written application dtd. 16.0.2007(Annexure-A) addressed to Branch Manager,OP-Bank by the complainant. On examining of Annexure-A it reveals that complainant agreed to deduct Rs.5,000/- from the said pension account and same to be deposited on RD account No.1231 which stands in the name of Sarada Prasan Mishra and the said RD account has kept mortgaged in R.V.R.Enterprises C.C.loan and the said deduction/adjustment will be easier to pay the Bank’s dues on future. It is clear from the Annexure-A and reply by complainant on examination in cross that, complainant had authorized OP No.1-Bank Manager that an amount of Rs.5,000/-be deducted and transferred to RD account No.1231 which was kept mortgaged in the complainant;s cash credit loan account. It is also clear from the reply to the examination in cross that complainant stood as ‘guarantor’ against the cash credit loan of his son namely Sarada Prasan Mishra. But no where the Annexure-A reveals that the OP No.1-Bank was authorized or consented to deduct/transferred Rs.5,000/- per month from the pension account of the complainant and same to be continued even after maturity of the RD account and to be adjusted in the cash credit loan account of the complainant’s son. The second point raised by OP-Bank is that as the cash credit loan was not liquidated and as the complainant stood guarantor to the said loan and by OP-Bank by exercising the letter of general lien(Annexure-B) deducted and adjusted the monthly pension of Rs.5,000/- from the pension account of the complainant consider the written application dtd. 16.10.2007(Annexure-A). In this regard we are of the opinion that the Annexure-A the written application of complainant never authorizes the OP-Bank to adjust his monthly pension amount against the cash credit loan after the maturity of R.D.account. TANAN’Banking Laws and Practice in India defines ‘lien as the Banker can exercise his right of lien on the balance of the account of the surety or guarantor in his possession notwithstanding the fact that his claim under the guarantee is time barred. However, it should be noted that his right to exercise a general lien does n ot arise until a default has been made by the principal debtor, in which case the banker should immediately inform the guarantor that the former has exercised his lien on the latter’s money or securities deposited with him. A banker is not,however, bound to sue the debtor before claiming the amount from the surety or guarantor.” After going through the letter of general lien dtd.17.03.2007(Annexure-B) no where it is mentioned that OP-Bank is authorized to deduct the monthly pension of a guarantor without his consent. The OP-Bank has interpreted the letter of general lien as per their sweet will. Thus, the OP-Bank has not followed up the Banking Procedures on deduction of pension amount before exercising the power of general lien. OP-Bank in their written statement take the plea that after maturity of RD account on dtd.15.12.2009. Complainant was well aware about the deductions of his monthly pension and it was not an unilateral action of the OP-Bank rather the deduction was consented by complainant-pensioner and the said facts were intimated to the complainant.
On consent of complainant, the written application dtd. 16.10.2007(Annexure-A) we have discussed in detail in the earlier paragraphs of this order. That apart not a single paper is produced before this Forum to show that complainant has authorized to deduct his pension amount of the maturity of R.D. Account on dtd.15.12.2009 except the application dtd.16.10.2009. Equally the OP-Bank has not produced any document to satisfy the Forum regarding intimation to the complainant in respect of deduction of monthly pension after maturity of the RD account as averred in their written statement.
On the above discussions it appears that OP-Bank has illegally deducted the monthly pension amount of Rs.5,000/- from dtd.15.12.2009 after maturity of the RD account bearing No.1231, which is a clear case of deficiency in service committed by OP-Bank. As the Role of OP No.2 the Regional Manager,Allahabad Bank,Bhubaneswar though not intimated anyway by the complainant as evident from the complaint and documents filed into the dispute. However, as the Administrative Head OP No.2 is equally liable for the illegal acts of OP No.1.
OP-Bank challenged the maintainability of the complainant on grounds of limitation under Sec.24(A) of the C.P.Act. It is stated by the OP-Bank that the RD account was matured on dtd.15.12.2009 and the complaint is filed in the year 2015 which is hopelessly barred by limitation as per the provisions of C.P.Act,1986. On the other hand complainant filed a Xerox copy of letter addressed to OP No.1 on dtd.26.02.15 where the officials of the OP-Bank remarked justifying the deduction of the pension account. It is crystal clear that the cause of action is continuing till the year 2015 and when the said letter is filed as list of documents and no way disputed by the OP-Bank. Hence, the present complaint is well within the limitation of the C.P.Act,1986. So far the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties by not impleading complainant’s son as a party to the dispute. In this regard, we are of view that when the facts of opening RD Account and taking the cash credit loan in the name of complainant’s son is admitted and disclosed in the complaint petition. There is no legal necessity to implead complainant’s son as a party to the proceeding.
On the aforesaid facts and position of law complainant deserves to get back his monthly pension amount which has been illegally deducted by the OP-Bank. Complainant deserves to get back his monthly pension of 64 months from December,2009 to April,2015 @ Rs.5,000/- per month. Complainant in the complaint petition narrates that as he is a senior citizen and diabetic patient needs regular medical treatment and on non-payment of his monthly pension amount he was deprived of availing the treatment. In support of the said complainant filed a number of medical treatment receipt. This Forum apprises the fact that non-payment of monthly pension definitely hampers the medical treatment of the complainant who is a senior citizen, accordingly the complainant also deserves sympathy of this Forum on the grounds of compensation claimed. On time of filing of the present complaint, complainant has deposited Rs.200/- as fees for filing of the complaint. But on verification of the complaint it is found that the total claim is for Rupees Eight lakhs twenty thousand. As per the Consumer Protection Rules, compensation claimed above Rs.5 lakhs needs Rs.400/- as fees to be deposited while filing the complaint. In the instant case complaint is in shortage of Rs.200/- as fees for filing the complaint. Complainant is directed to pay Rs.200/- more in shape of IPO/D.D. before receipt of this order.
Having observations reflected above, it is directed that OP-Bank will return the monthly pension amount, for 64 months from dtd.15.12.2009 to April,2015 total amounting of Rs.3 lakhs 20 thousand only which was deducted from the pension account of the complainant along with 5 per cent interest. In addition to that OP-Bank will pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand)only as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand)only for cost of litigation. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of this order, failing which 9 per cent interest will be charged for the delayed period.
The complaint is allowed in part with cost and compensation.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 28th March,2016.
