Haryana

Bhiwani

51/2014

Rameshwar Dass Son of Jiram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager S.B.I - Opp.Party(s)

Somvir Singh

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                     

                                                                        Complaint No.:51 of 2014.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 13.02.2014.

                                                                      Date of Decision:27.03.2017

 

No. 1262599 Ex-Nk (TS) Rameshwar Dass son of Shri Jiram, resident of village and post office Dinod, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

 

                                                                                ….Complainant.

                                                                                          

                                        Versus

1. The Manager (Main Branch) State Bank of India, Bhiwani near Ghanta Ghar, Bhiwani.

 

2. The Chief Manager State Bank of India, Central Pension Processing Centre Plot No. 1 -2, Sector 5, Panchkula (Haryana).

 

3. Defence Pension Disbursing Officer DPDO Bhiwani.

 

                                                                                     …...Opposite Parties. 

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.

 

 

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

                  Mrs. Sudesh, Member

                  Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member

      

 

Present:-  None for the complainant.

      Sh. M.L. Sardana, Advocate for Ops no. 1 & 2.

      Sh. Anil Khurana, Advocate for OP no. 3.

 

ORDER:-

 

Rajesh Jindal, President:

 

         

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had served in the Army in Regiment of Artillery and after retirement he was granted the service pension vide Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad, Pension Payment Order No. S/010953/1989 (ARMY).  It is alleged that in compliance of order dated 29.02.2012 by Hon’ble AFT Chandigrh in OA No. 511/2012 filed by No. 7093427 Ex-HAV Ram Pal Singh and eight others Vs. UOI and others, PCDA (P) Allahabad issued the PPO No. S/Corr/0300/2013 dated  01 Mar 2013 in respect of the complainant and forwarded the same to Artillery Records, Nasik Road Camp.  Thereafter Artillery Records vide their letter No. 1262599/SR/PPO/61/Pen-4A (LC) dated 11.03.2013 sent the said Corr. PPO to Processing Centre, Plot No. 1 – 2, Sector 5, Panchkula for further transfer the said Corr. PPO to the Paying Branch of the pensioners after doing the needful.  It is alleged that the complainant is drawing his pension through Defence Pension Disbursing Office, Bhiwani after doing the needful by OP no. 1 the said Corr PPO was required to be submitted to DPDO Bhiwani for the revision of the service pension of the complainant.  It is alleged that the complainant through his counsel contacted the DPDO regarding receipt of said Corr. PPO DPDO Bhiwani.  It is alleged that opposite party have failed to make the payment of entitled revised pensionary benefits even after the lapse of more than 10 months.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.                 On appearance, the Ops no. 1 & 2 filed written statement alleging therein that the PPO in question could not be forwarded to the OP no. 3 because the new account number was not mentioned therein.  It is submitted that the original copy of corrigendum PPO No. S/Corr/0300/2013 dated 01.03.201 has since been forwarded to the OP no. 3.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties no. 1 & 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                 OP No. 3 on appearance also filed separate written statement.  It is submitted that in response of legal notice  on behalf of the complainant this office has already intimated vide letter No. DPDO/BWI/23335/SBI Bhiwani dated 18.06.2013 that Corr PPO No. S/Corr/0300/2013 has not received in this office till date.  It is submitted that the payment would be released to the complainant on receipt of original copy of Corr PPO bearing No. S/Corr/0300/2013 from CDA (P) Allahabad.    Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

4.                In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 alongwith supporting affidavit

5.                In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite parties no. 1 & 2 has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 & R-2 alongwith supporting affidavit.

6.                 The complainant or his counsel is not appearing more than one year and the case is being adjourned time and again in the absence of the complainant.  It seems that the complainant is not interested to pursue his case.  This is old case, we proceed to decide this case on merits.  Arguments of counsels for the OPs heard.  We have gone through the record of the case carefully.

7.                 Learned counsel for the Ops no. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the old SB account number was mentioned in the PPO.  Hence the same could not be forwarded after getting new account number of the complainant.  The PPO in question has since been forwarded to the OP no. 3 on 01.03.2013.  The grievance of the complainant has been redressed by the Ops no. 1 & 2.  Therefore, the complainant is not interested to pursue his complaint and nobody is appearing on his behalf for the long time. 

8.                 We have perused the record carefully.  The written statement has been filed on behalf of OP no. 3 wherein it has been stated that PPO in question has not been received by it.  Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops no. 1 & 2 to send the PPO in question to the OP no. 3, if already not received by the OP no. 3.  The Ops no. 1 & 2 is directed to take all possible steps to comply with this order, within 60 days from the date of passing of this order.  If Ops no. 1 & 2 failed to comply with this order they shall be liable to deposit Rs. 2,000/- as cost with this District Forum. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 27.03.2017.                                                (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                President,     

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                      Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

 

 

(Anamika Gupta)                              (Sudesh)  

       Member.                                             Member.