Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/109

JAGDISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER STATE BANK OF PATIALA - Opp.Party(s)

KASHMIR LAL

22 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :           109 of 2017

Date of Institution :         3.04.2017

Date of Decision :         22.01.2019

Jagdish Kumar aged about 61 years, s/o Babbu Ram, s/o Lachman Das r/o Street No. 1, Partap Nagar, Kotkapura District Faridkot.                            

                          .....Complainant

Versus

1. Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Kotkapura District Faridkot.

..........OP

2. The 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 Ravinder Goyal, 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 son of late Sh Babbu Ram and Smt Parkashwati and is legal representative being their son. Babbu Ram/father of complainant died on 4.01.2002

cc no.109 of 2017

and being widow his mother Smt Parkashwati was receiving family pension. Smt Parkashwati also expired on 19.12.2015 and she received pension till her death i.e 19.12.2015. It is submitted that family pension was being received by mother of complainant from State Bank of Patiala, Kotkapura/Op-1. It is submitted that mother of complainant is having saving bank account no.55021379744  with OP-1 and she opted to draw pension from the bank of OP-1. Record of payment of pension shows that she was not paid old age allowance despite submission of requisite certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Faridkot to OP-1. Vide letter no.5277  dated 15.04.2014, Civil Surgeon, Faridkot issued Age Certificate to his mother on 15.04.2014 according to which  on 15.04.2014 she was of 100 years age. On 4.01.2002, she was 87 years, 8 months and 19 days old and was entitled to get old age allowance alongwith pension as per government letter no.1/7/93/IFP3/1343 DATED 13.02.1995 r/w letter dated 22.11.2001. mother of complainant was entitled to get old age allowance at the rate of 10% of basic pay w.e.f.4.01.2002 and at the rate of 30% w.e.f1.08.2009, on attaining the age of 90 years she was entitled for old age allowance at the rate of 40% , after 95 years age at the rate of 50% and after attaining the age of 100 years, she was entitled for old age allowance at the rate of 100% and it was applicable w.e.f.1.08.2009. rate of old age allowance changed vide letter dated 22.12.2011 and was declared effective w.e.f.1.12.2011. Thus, mother of complainant at the age of 97 years 7 months and 16 days was entitled for 55% old age allowance w.e.f.1.12.2011 and 100% from 15.04.2014 and his deceased mother herself submitted the age certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Faridkot to State Bank of Patiala. Despite repeated requests by mother of complainant Bank did not pay old age allowance alongwith DA admissible to her till death. After death of mother of complainant, complainant made several requests to Ops to make payment of old age allowance being life

cc no.109 of 2017

time entitlement of deceased Parkashwati and Manager State Bank of Patiala vide letter dated 9.02.2016 requested District Treasury Officer, Faridkot for further necessary action and also transmitted the said certificate to Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, CPPC, First Floor Pargati Bhawan Urban Estate, Phase 3, Patiala for further necessary action but all in vain. It is further submitted that mother of complainant was entitled for pension at the rate of basic pension alongwith old age pension plus dearness allowance admissible on it from time to time, but despite repeated requests by deceased mother of complainant during her life and after her death by complainant and even after issuance of instruction by District Treasury Officer, Faridkot on 9.02.2016 and thereafter vide letter dated 24.05.2016, bank failed to make payment of amount less paid and OP bank did not do the needful. She was entitled to get her dues alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per anum from the date of accrual till realization. She was paid less payment of pension by OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. 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 17.04.2017, 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 and is liable to be dismissed. Complainant has not impleaded Chief Manager, Centralized Pension Processing Cell, State Bank of Patiala, Urban Estate,

cc no.109 of 2017

Patiala and other legal heirs of Babbu Ram and Parkaswati as necessary parties in the present complaint and therefore, it is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It is admitted that Parkashwati was receiving her family pension through answering OP and was having saving bank account with them. It is averred that when certificate was submitted by PPO Holder, the process for granting allowance initiated and sent to Chief Manager, Centralized Pension Processing Cell, State Bank of Patiala, Urban Estate Patiala and they have to pay the allowance after due sanction from the competent authority, which has not been received yet. It is averred that as and when sanction is received, the arrears would be paid from the date when the certificate was submitted by PPO holder regarding her age. It is further averred that case of Parkashwati for old age allowance has already been processed with the competent authority and same would be paid as and when the sanction will be received. Pension was being paid to Parkashwati without any delay. 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 filed reply wherein admitted that Parkashwati was holder of Pension Payment Order No.14541 and was drawing pension from OP-1 bank. It is averred that as per Note 4 of Rule 6.18 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-2, Punjab Government Pensioners are entitled to get the old age allowance which are effective from 1.12.2011 and as per said rule Civil Surgeon was to ascertain the age of pensioners whose age is not mentioned in the PPO. It is admitted that bank is required to make additional pension to pensioners at correct rate as per government rules. Letters bearing no.223  and 930 dated 9.02.2016 and 24.05.2016 respectively were sent to OP-1 bank to make payment to the pensioner

cc no.109 of 2017

at correct rates and it was directed to make the payment of pension if same is in order and ensure that no double payment is made to pensioner. It is averred that matter is between complainant and OP-1 bank and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

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-11 and then, closed his evidence.

7                                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jaswant Saha, Chief Manager State Bank of India as Ex. OP-1 and then, closed the evidence.  Kashmir Kaur Gill, District Treasury Officer, Faridkot tendered in evidence affidavit on behalf of OP-2 and also closed the evidence.

8                                            Ld Counsel for complainant argued that mother of complainant was receiving family pension being widow and after the death of his mother, complainant being son is legal representative. Father of complainant died on 4.01.2002 and being widow his mother was receiving family pension. Mother of complainant also expired on 19.12.2015 and she received pension till her death i.e 19.12.2015. It is submitted that family pension was being received by mother of complainant from State Bank of Patiala, Kotkapura/Op-1. Record of payment of pension shows that she was not paid old age allowance despite submission of requisite certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Faridkot to OP-1. Vide letter no.5277 dated 15.04.2014, Civil Surgeon, Faridkot issued Age Certificate to his mother on 15.04.2014 according to which  on 15.04.2014 she was of 100 years age. On 4.01.2002, she was 87 years, 8 months and 19 days old and was entitled to get old

cc no.109 of 2017

age allowance alongwith pension as per government letter no.1/7/93/IFP3/1343 DATED 13.02.1995 r/w letter dated 22.11.2001. mother of complainant was entitled to get old age allowance at the rate of 10% of basic pay w.e.f.4.01.2002 and at the rate of 30% w.e.f1.08.2009, on attaining the age of 90 years she was entitled for old age allowance at the rate of 40% , after 95 years age at the rate of 50% and after attaining the age of 100 years, she was entitled for old age allowance at the rate of 100% and it was applicable w.e.f.1.08.2009. rate of old age allowance changed vide letter dated 22.12.2011 and was declared effective w.e.f.1.12.2011. Thus, mother of complainant at the age of 97 years 7 months and 16 days was entitled for 55% old age allowance w.e.f.1.12.2011 and 100% from 15.04.2014 and his deceased mother herself submitted the age certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Faridkot to State Bank of Patiala. Despite repeated requests by mother of complainant Bank did not pay old age allowance alongwith DA admissible to her till death. After death of mother of complainant, complainant made several requests to Ops to make payment of old age allowance being life time entitlement of deceased Parkashwati and Manager State Bank of Patiala vide letter dated 9.02.2016 requested District Treasury Officer, Faridkot for further necessary action and also transmitted the said certificate to Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, CPPC, First Floor Pargati Bhawan Urban Estate, Phase 3, Patiala for further necessary action but all in vain. She was entitled for pension at the rate of basic pension alongwith old age pension plus dearness allowance admissible on it from time to time, but despite repeated requests by deceased mother of complainant during her life and after her death by complainant and even after issuance of instructions given by District Treasury Officer, Faridkot on 9.02.2016 and thereafter vide letter dated 24.05.2016, bank failed to make payment of amount less paid and OP bank did not do the needful. She was entitled to get her dues

cc no.109 of 2017

alongwith interest as she was paid less payment of pension by OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service This has caused great harassment to complainant and his family. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 11.

9                                    Ld counsel for complainant has placed on record copy of notification issued by Finance Department dated 17.08.2009 which contains instructions for revision of pension of pre 1.01.2006 pensioners and family pensioners. Ex C-3 is the copy of letter dated 22.12.2011 vide which Finance Department granted Old Age Allowance to pensions and family pensioners. Pension Payment Order Ex C-4 which clears that she was receiving family pension. Ex C-5 is the certificate dated 15.04.2014, issued by office of Civil Surgeon, Faridkot, wherein it is clearly mentioned that mother of complainant attained the age of 100 years. Ex C-6 to ExC-11 are copies of letters which reiterate the grievance of complainant and all these documents show the 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 complaint is not maintainable as complainant has not impleaded Chief Manager, Centralized Pension Processing Cell, State Bank of Patiala, Urban Estate, Patiala and other legal heirs of Babbu Ram and Parkaswati as necessary parties in the present complaint and therefore, it is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It is admitted that Parkashwati was receiving her family pension through answering OP and was having saving bank account with them and when certificate was submitted by PPO Holder, the process for granting allowance

cc no.109 of 2017

initiated and sent to Chief Manager, Centralized Pension Processing Cell, State Bank of Patiala, Urban Estate Patiala and they have to pay the allowance after due sanction from the competent authority, which has not been received yet. It is argued that as and when sanction is received, the arrears would be paid from the date when the certificate was submitted by PPO holder regarding her age. It is further averred that case of Parkashwati for old age allowance has already been processed with the competent authority and same would be paid as and when the sanction is received. Pension was being paid to Parkashwati without any delay and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11                                  OP-2 argued that Parkashwati was holder of Pension Payment Order No.14541 and was drawing pension from OP-1 bank. As per Note 4 of Rule 6.18 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-2, Punjab Government Pensioners are entitled to get the old age allowance which are effective from 1.12.2011 and as per said rule, Civil Surgeon was to ascertain the age of pensioners whose age is not mentioned in the PPO. Bank is required to make additional pension to pensioners at correct rate as per government rules and letters bearing no.223  and 930 dated 9.02.2016 and 24.05.2016 respectively regarding this were sent to OP-1 bank to make payment to the pensioner at correct rates and it was directed to make the payment of pension if same is in order and ensure that no double payment is made to pensioner. Op-2 argued that matter is between complainant and OP-1 bank and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

12                                       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

cc no.109 of 2017

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 not consumer and he is relegated to Civil Court for adjudication of her accounts settlement dispute.

13                             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

cc no.109 of 2017

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.

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

15                                       The case of complainant is that his father was a government employee and after his death, mother of complainant was drawing family pension being widow and complainant is the legal heir of his parents. Contention of complainant is that during her life time, mother of complainant was not given old age allowance on basic pension as per instructions of government notifications issued from time to time. On the other hand, 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.

16                                      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.

cc no.109 of 2017

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: 22.01.2019

 

(Param Pal Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

Member                       President