Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/310

Ravinder Singh Kalsi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager SBOP - Opp.Party(s)

Kashmri Lal

07 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :           310

Date of Institution :     13.09.2017

Date of Decision :         7.01.2019

Ravinder Singh Kalsi aged about 65 years, s/o Harbans Singh, r/o Dogar Basti, street no. 2 (Left), Faridkot.                                                       .....Complainant

Versus

1. State Bank of Patiala now State Bank of India. K N Jain Sr. Sec. School Branch, Faridkot.                                                                

.............OP

2. District Treasury Officer, Faridkot.                          .........Performa Party

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh Kashmir Lal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Sandeep Tayal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

 Ms Bharti on behalf of OP-2.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of less paid pension alongwith DA, old age pension, medical allowance and IR as per instructions of government and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,000/-on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

 2                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the husband of Gurmail Kaur, who expired on 2.08.2002. Gurmail Kaur was government employee and after her death, her husband/complainant is entitled to get family pension and other pensionery benefits. It is submitted that family pension is being received by complainant from State Bank of Patiala, K N Jain, School, now State Bank of India, Faridkot on  Pension Payment Order/PPO sent by OP-2 to OP-1. It is submitted that complainant is having saving bank account no.55006472130 with OP-1 and he opted to draw pension from the bank of OP-1. It is further submitted that despite repeated requests, OP-1 has not issued his account statement of his saving account for the period from 2.08.2002 to till date for the reasons best known to them. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant is entitled to draw pension at the rate of basic pension Rs.10,086/- per month plus DA admissible and other allowances as per instructions issued by government from time to time with effect from 1.12.2011 to 18.03.2014 as per Punjab Government notification dated 23.12.2011, but complainant has been paid less pension and is required to be paid pension at revised rate from 1.01.2006 in the light of notification dt 17.08.2009. Revised pension comes to Rs.10,086/- and thereafter, complainant was entitled to get Rs.6,425/-normal rate per month with effect from 19.03.2007 onwards. A.G. Punjab, Chandigarh has clarified vide its letter dated 4.02.2013 that enhance rate is admissible in those cases where period of 10 years of death has not been completed on 1.12.2011 meaning thereby the persons who have expired after 1.12.2001 are entitled to get the enhanced rate and necessary entries in this regard were required to be made by District Treasury Officers. Government of Punjab Department of Finance vide its letter dated 28.04.2015 clarified to all banks including OP-1 that suitable entries are to be recorded on PPO by the pension disbursing authority. In the instant case, Pension Disbursing Authority is K. N. Jain Sr. Sec School SBI Branch, Faridkot. Despite repeated requests by complainant to pay him enhanced rate of pension w.e.f.1.12.2011 to 19.03.2014 as per instructions of government dt 23.12.2011, they have not done anything needful. Complainant also sent his request to OPs with copies to Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, Bathinda and Chandigarh vide letters dt 25.05.2017; 8.07.2017; 14.07.2017; 28.07.2017, but all in vain. Complainant also submitted his PPO to OP-1 in original to do the needful as per letter of Finance Department dt 23.12.2011, but that also served no purpose. All this has caused great harassment and mental torture to complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses along with main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                         Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19.09.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                        On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that instant complaint is not maintainable in the present form as answering OP has acted only as a facilitator. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum that earlier he filed an application before the higher authorities, who duly replied and disclosed to complainant that as per Punjab Government Notification, the enhanced family pension should not be completed before 1.07.2011 and in the instant case, the enhanced family pension period ceased on 18.08.2007 and therefore, application of complainant was rejected. Moreover, complainant has not impleaded Accountant General and State of Punjab as necessary parties and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties. Complainant has unnecessarily impleaded answering OP as party. Claim of complainant does not fall under the ambit of consumer and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, complaint in hand is time barred as complainant is demanding payment during the period of 1.12.2011 till 19.03.2014. Date of birth of deceased wife of complainant is 19.03.1949, she expired on 3.08.2002 and her family pension commenced from 4.08.2002.  As per government notification, rate of enhanced family pension in case of employees who die in harness, shall be payable during first seven years from the date of death or till he would have attained the age of superannuation had he received, whichever period is less. The date of birth of deceased pensioner is 19.03.1949 and period of enhanced family pension has been ceased on 18.08.2007. As per government notification, the pensioner is not eligible for enhanced rates till 18.03.2014. The instruction period of ten years of enhanced family pension as per notification dt 25.07.2011 were not applicable in the present case as it is conditions in the letter that the enhanced rates shall not apply in those cases, where the period of seven years stood completed before the first day of July, 2011 and family was receiving family pension at normal rates. As per letter dated 23.12.2011, the instruction period of 10 years of enhanced family pension are also not applicable in the present case as period of ten years shall not apply in those cases where the period of ten years stood completed before first day of December, 2011 and family was receiving family pension at normal rates as date of superannuation of retiree is 18.08.2007. However, on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that notification dt 23.12.2011 is not applicable in the case of complainant. It is also denied that complainant is receiving pension since 8.02.2002, rather he has been receiving pension from 4.08.2002 and it is totally denied that his pension is required to be revised. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party. All other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.

5                                  OP-2 appeared in the Forum but did not file any reply though they led their evidence.

6                               Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-21 and then, closed his evidence.

7                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sandeep Saha/ Manager State Bank of India as Ex. OP-1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to OP-1/4 and then, closed the evidence. Sh Krishan Kumar Handa, District Treasury Officer, Faridkot tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex OP-2/1 and also closed the evidence.

8                               Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is the husband of Gurmail Kaur, who expired on 2.08.2002. Said Gurmail Kaur was government employee and after her death, her husband/complainant is entitled to get family pension, which is being received by complainant from State Bank of Patiala, K N Jain, School, now State Bank of India, Faridkot on PPO sent by OP-2 to OP-1. It is submitted that complainant is having saving bank account with OP-1 and he opted to draw pension from the bank of OP-1. Despite repeated requests, OP-1 has not issued account statement of his saving account for the period from 2.08.2002 to him for the reasons best known to them. Complainant is entitled to draw pension at the rate of basic pension Rs.10,086/- per month plus DA admissible and other allowances as per instructions of government  w.e.f. 1.12.2011 to 18.03.2014. He has been paid less pension and is required to be paid pension at the revised rate from 1.01.2006 in the light of notification dt 17.08.2009. Revised pension comes to Rs.10,086/- and thereafter, complainant was entitled to get Rs.6,425/-normal rate per month with effect from 19.03.2007 onwards. A.G. Punjab, Chandigarh has clarified vide its letter dated 4.02.2013 that enhance rate is admissible in those cases where period of 10 years of death has not been completed on 1.12.2011 meaning thereby the persons who have expired after 1.12.2001 are entitled to get the enhanced rate and necessary entries in this regard were required to be made by District Treasury Officers. Government of Punjab Department of Finance vide its letter dated 28.04.2015 clarified to all banks including OP-1 that suitable entries are to be recorded on PPO by the pension disbursing authority. In the instant case, Pension Disbursing Authority is OP-1, bu despite repeated requests by complainant to pay him enhanced rate of pension w.e.f.1.12.2011 to 19.03.2014 as per instructions of government dt 23.12.2011, they have not done anything needful. Complainant also sent his request to OPs with copies to Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, Bathinda and Chandigarh vide letters dt 25.05.2017; 8.07.2017; 14.07.2017; 28.07.2017, but all in vain. Complainant also submitted his PPO to OP-1 in original to do the needful as per letter of Finance Department dt 23.12.2011, but that also served no purpose. All this has caused great harassment to complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 21.

9                                Ld counsel for complainant has placed on record copy of Pension Payment Order Ex C-2 which clears that he was receiving family pension which commenced from 4.08.2002. Ex C-6, 12 and 18 are copies of letters written by complainant to Manager of State Bank of India for granting his pension as per revised rates. Ex C-9 and Ex C-11 are the documents showing correspondence occurred between complainant and OP-1.

10                                       To controvert the arguments of complainant counsel, ld counsel for OP-1 argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and asserted that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum that earlier he filed an application before the higher authorities, who rejected his application by disclosing that as per Punjab Government Notification, the enhanced family pension should not be completed before 1.07.2011 and in the case of complainant, the enhanced family pension period ceased on 18.08.2007. It is argued that complainant has not impleaded Accountant General, Punjab and State of Punjab as necessary parties and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties. He has unnecessarily impleaded answering OP as party. Claim of complainant does not fall under the ambit of consumer and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is brought before the Forum that present complaint is time barred as complainant is demanding payment during the period of 1.12.2011 till 19.03.2014. Date of birth of deceased wife of complainant is 19.03.1949, she expired on 3.08.2002 and her family pension commenced from 4.08.2002.  As per government notification, rate of enhanced family pension in case of employees who die in harness, shall be payable during first seven years from the date of death or till he would have attained the age of superannuation had he received, whichever period is less. The date of birth of deceased pensioner is 19.03.1949 and period of enhanced family pension has been ceased on 18.08.2007. As per government notification, the pensioner is not eligible for enhanced rates till 18.03.2014. The instruction period of ten years of enhanced family pension as per notification dt 25.07.2011 is applicable in the present case as it is conditions in the letter that the enhanced rates shall not apply in those cases, where the period of seven years stood completed before the first day of July, 2011 and family was receiving family pension at normal rates. As per letter dated 23.12.2011, the instruction period of 10 years of enhanced family pension is also not applicable in the present case as period of ten years shall not apply in those cases where the period of ten years stood completed before first day of December, 2011 and family was receiving family pension at normal rates as date of superannuation of retiree is 18.08.2007. It is sternly argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP -1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

11                                       Ld counsel for OP-1 argued that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as complainant is a Government pensioner and the present dispute is related to pension, which is granted to him in lieu of services as government employee. He does not fall under the definition of consumer under Consumer Protection Act. As there is no question of maintainability of the present complaint before this Forum on the ground that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. So, before going into the merits of the present complaint, the issue whether complainant falls under the definition of consumer is to be decided as preliminary issue. To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for OP-1 has placed reliance on judgment given by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in F A No. 598 of 2016 titled as Nasib Chand Vs Parkash Singh wherein Hon’ble Commission held that pension in dispute is not falling within the definition of ‘consumer’ as there is no element of sale or service involved in it. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act. He has placed further reliance on judgment dated 31.12.2018 given by Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in F A No. 80 of 2018 titled as Smt Bishambari Devi Vs Branch Manager Pension Disbursing Authority wherein the identical fact as in the present complaint is involved, the Hon’ble State Commission held that, complainant is relegated to Civil Court for adjudication of her accounts settlement dispute.

  12                             Ld counsel for OP-1 put further reliance on another judgment issued by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2925 of 2012 titled as Farakka Barrage Project & Ors Vs Putul Dom wherein it is held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2 (1) (g), 2(1) (o) and 21 (b) Pension Services-Restoration of Pension- Releasing of arrears- Jurisdiction of –Complaint filed- District Forum allowed- state Commission Partly allowed appeal- Hence, revision petition filed before National Commission – Maintainability of – Deceased was a Government employee- Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with pension matter – Both Foras committed error in allowing complaint – Complain dismissed.

13                           We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by parties.

14                          The case of complainant is that his wife was a government employee and after her death, he was receiving family pension. Contention of complainant is that he has not been given revised family pension as per instructions of government notification dt 23.12.2011. Representative of O-2 also submitted vide their affidavit Ex OP-2/1 that complainant is entitled to get the enhanced rate of family pension w.e.f. 1.12.2011 to 18.03.2014 as per provisions of instructions issued by the Government vide their notification date d23.12.2011. But Ld Counsel for Op-1 stressed mainly on the point that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable in this Forum as complainant is not the consumer of OP-1. No consideration is ever received by them from complainant. He has relied upon judgments given by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in F A No. 598 of 2016 titled as Nasib Chand Vs Parkash Singh and in F A No. 80 of 2018  titled as Smt Bishambari Devi Vs Branch Manager Pension Disbursing Authority and in decision given by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2925 of 2012 titled as Farakka Barrage Project & Ors Vs Putul Dom (supra) that clear the point that complainant is not the consumer of OP-1 and this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the pension matter.

15                                      We have carefully gone through the case and from the perusal of evidence produced by respective parties and case law produced by OPs, it is clear that pension complaint matter is not maintainable in this Forum. Therefore, complaint filed by complaint stands hereby dismissed. However, complainant is at liberty to file it afresh in appropriate court. In peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated: 7.01.2019

Member                       President           (Param Pal Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)