This revision petition is directed against the order of the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) dated 1.8.2012 whereby State Commission dismissed the first appeal No.269/2011 preferred by the petitioner Bank (opposite party).

2.         Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the respondent/complainant is widow of Major Gurwaryam Singh who unfortunately died on 19^th August, 1969. After the death of her husband, family pension was sanctioned in favour of the respondent/complainant. The complainant was receiving the said pension through the pension account opened in the petitioner Bank, which is a notified Pension Disbursing Agency. The respondent was regularly getting her pension at the sanctioned rates till December, 1995. After the report of the 6^th Pay Commission the pension of the respondent was revised w.e.f. 1^st January, 1996. According to the complainant, as per the circular issued in this regard by the Central Government the petitioner Bank was to re-fix the pension as per the revised rates and disburse the same to the complainant. The petitioner Bank, however, instead of disbursing the revised pension kept on disbursing pension to the complainant at the old rates. In February, 2010 the respondent/complainant came to know about the discrepancy through a family friend. The complainant, therefore, visited the Bank and enquired as to why she was being paid pension less than her entitlement. The Bank officials, however, instead of addressing her grievance told her that she was getting her pension as per entitlement. Dissatisfied with the response received from the petitioner Bank, the complainant approached the Controller of Defence Accounts and on the intervention of the Controller of Defence Accounts, the petitioner Bank paid a sum of Rs.12,05,723/- to the complainant as arrears of pension.

3.         Being aggrieved of the conduct of the petitioner, the respondent filed a consumer complaint on 6.10.2010 seeking 6% interest amounting to Rs.4,03,009/- on account of delayed payment besides compensation and litigation cost.

4.       The petitioner in its written reply resisted the complaint claiming that it was simply a pension-disbursing agency and was supposed to act as an agent for disbursement of pension. According to the petitioner it had no power to enhance/rectify incorrect fixation of pension and as per Government of India Rules the category/classification of pensioners is always required to be fixed by the parent organization of the pensioners and not the petitioner Bank. It was also claimed that as per PPO No.M/FSPL/00275/2000 the complainant’s pension under Special Family Pension was fixed at Rs.3,840/- and there was no discrepancy or error. It was not denied that pension was paid to the complainant from 1.1.1996 to 8.9.2010 at unrevised rates and subsequently the arrears of pension calculated on the basis of difference amounting to Rs.12,05,723/- were paid on 8.9.2010. It was further claimed that on account of misinterpretation of letters issued by the Government, a huge loss was caused to the opposite party for overpayments to pensioners to which the auditors had objected. Therefore, clarification was sought from PCDA vide letters dated 25,4,2010, 8.7.2010, 31.7.2010 and 18.8.2010 before releasing the arrears of pension. The petitioner further took the plea that complainant never approached the petitioner for disbursal of pension at revised rates.

5.       On consideration of pleadings of the parties and the evidence, learned District Forum held the petitioner to be deficient in service and allowed the complaint with following directions: -

“In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OP to: -

1. Pay interest on the arrears of pension at the Bank rate plus 2% penal interest for the delay in payment of such arrears (in accordance with Para No.40 (i) reproduced above)
2. Pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3. Pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

OP is directed to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order failing which, OP shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of failing the complaint i.e. 6.10.2010 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charges. After compliance file be consigned to record room.”

6.         Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the State Commission vide impugned order confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

7.       Learned Ms. Isha J. Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the complainant never approached the petitioner for disbursal of her pension at a revised rate. It is also contended that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the petitioner is only an agent for disbursal of pension and actually the Controller of Defence Accounts was the parent department who was supposed to fix the revised pension and issue instruction in that regard. The parent department has not even been made a party. Lastly, it is contended that the compensation awarded is not sustainable because it is much beyond the relief prayed for in the complaint.

8.       Learned counsel for the complainant on the contrary has drawn our attention to circular No.282 dated 6.8.2001 issued by the office of Controller of Defence Accounts to various pension disbursal authorities including the Punjab National Bank and contended that as per this circular the pension disbursing agencies were required to take action to revise the pension of the pensioners suo-motu without waiting for any instructions from the pensioners. Learned counsel contended that in view of this circular it was obligation of the petitioner Bank to fix the revised pension of the complainant without waiting for her request and the petitioner on account of failure to do so is guilty of deficiency in service.

9.       Regarding the interest, learned counsel has contended that 2% penal interest has been awarded by the Foras below in view of the instructions of Reserve Bank of India issued vide circular dated 1.7.2010.

10.     We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to have a look on the law relating to the extent of powers of this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revisional powers of this Commission flow from Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. which reads as under:-

“To call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any con­sumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

11.     On reading of the above, it is clear that the revisional powers of the National Commission are limited to the extent of a jurisdictional error or some material irregularity in the finding of the Fora below. This implied that ordinarily unless some exceptional circumstances are shown, the National Commission would not interfere in the concurrent finding of fact returned by the Foras below.

12.     Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654   has observed ;

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

13.     In the light of the above stated position in law, we now proceed to look into the submissions made by the parties. From the record we find that both the Foras below have recorded concurrent finding of fact in favour of the respondent by well-reasoned orders. The reasoning given by the State Commission for dismissal of appeal is detailed in paras 10 to 15 of the impugned order which is reproduced as under: -

“The first question, for determination, before us is, as to whether, the complainant is a Consumer, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The answer to this question is in the affirmative. In Jagdish Kumar Bajpai Vs. Union of India-IV(2005 CPJ-197 (NC), a case decided by the Hon'ble National Commission, wherein, after relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P.Shantha and Others, it was held as under:-

            It is also to be stated that under the law, consideration can be in cash or kind. The definition of the word 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) provides that a person would, inter alia, be a consumer if he hires or avails of the services for consideration paid (paid in past or agreed to be paid in future including deferred payment). In consideration of service rendered to the Government till the age of superannuation, if right is conferred upon an employee to get pension as well as other benefits including medical treatment prescribed by various rules or the schemes framed by the Government, it cannot be held that it is a free service. Such employee would be a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Service rendered by the Government employees before retirement would be 'consideration' for providing medical facilities to him or his family members. Hence, it cannot be said that services rendered by the hospital which is subsidized by the Government is rendering service free of charge”.

            In the present case, the Opposite Party, being the disbursing agency of the PCDA/Parent organization of the pensioner, was rendering the services, by releasing the pension to the complainant and, as such, the complainant fell within the definition of a Consumer, as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is rejected. However, the facts and circumstances of the judgments, aforesaid, relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant, are entirely distinguishable, from the case, in hand, and, thus, the principle of law, laid down therein, is not applicable to this case.

Admittedly, after the death of her husband, the complainant was drawing the pension vide Annexure C-3. It is also an admitted fact that in the year 1996, the pay scales and pensions of Govt. Employees including the armed forces were revised.  From the perusal of Clause 2(ix) of the Circular Letter No.282 dated 06.08.2001 (Annexure C-4) issued by the office of the Principal CDA (P) Allahabad and reproduced in para No.5 of the order of the District Forum, it is evident that the Pension Disbursing Agencies were required to revise the pension of the pensioners, suo-motu, without waiting for any application from them and without reference to the office of the Principal CDA (P). Otherwise also, as per the Circular Letter (Annexure C-4), it was the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to disburse the revised pension, to the pensioners, which it failed to do. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel of the Opposite Party, that the Opposite Party, had no power to enhance /rectify incorrect fixation of pension or misclassification of pensioner, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is rejected.

          The next submission of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, that the interest and compensation could not be awarded together is also devoid of force because as per the letter/Master Circular-Disbursement of Pension by Agency Banks bearing No.RBI/2010-11/88 (DGBA.GAD No.H-2/31.05.2001/2010-11 dated 01.07.2010 issued by the Reserve Bank of India (at pages 129 and 131 of the District Forum File), the complainant was entitled to interest on the arrears of pension at the bank rate plus 2% penal interest for the delay in payment of such arrears as mentioned in para 9 of the order of the District Forum.  Since the complainant was deprived of the amount of revised pension, due to her, for a number of years, by the Opposite Party illegally, and improperly, she was certainly entitled to interest, as per the Circular Letter, referred to above. The District Forum was, thus, right in granting interest to the complainant in terms of the aforesaid circular.

            The fact could not be ignored that due to non-disbursement of the revised pension, on the respective due dates, the complainant certainly suffered a mental agony and a lot of physical harassment and she was forced to resort to litigation and, thus, she was definitely entitled to compensation on this count. In Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital Vs Bhupesh Khurana & Others, 1(2009)CPJ25(SC), the Apex Court, while upholding the order of the Fora below, regarding the refund of amount with interest @ 12% p.a., as also compensation of Rs.20,000/-, to each of the complainants, further directed the Opposite Parties, to pay additional compensation of Rs.one lac to each of them.   In Paramvir Singh Vs  P.H.Houses Pvt. Ltd. Revision Petition No.2779 of 2010 decided on 11.5.2011 the National Commission, in similar circumstances,  upheld the grant of interest, on the refund of amount, as also granted compensation, to the complainant. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, that interest and compensation could not be awarded together, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

            Taking all these facts into consideration, we are of the considered view, that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. The order, passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

14.     On reading of the above, we do not find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner because the submissions made by the petitioner before us have been adequately addressed by the State Commission in the above-noted well-reasoned order based on the facts as also the relevant circular and the communication issued by the office of Controller of Defence Accounts (P) as also the instructions of Reserve Bank of  India regarding grant of penal interest in case of delay in payment of arrears of pension. Thus, we do not find any jurisdictional error or material infirmity in the impugned order, which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

15.     Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.