BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 970/2006 against C.D 635/2005, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad
Between:
K. Latchamaiah
S/o. Late Varadaiah
Age: 70 years,
H.No. 10-4-A/482
Addagutta, Secunderabad. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
Syndicate Bank
Rep. by Branch Manager
S.C. Railway Quarters Area
S.D.Road, Secunderabad. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Resps: Mr. T. Bhaskar Rao
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in short is that he was a pensioner being a retired Railway employee having S.B. account in opposite party bank drawing pension granted by the government. While so, when he intended to withdraw some amount, he found that an amount of Rs. 14,837/- was freezed on which he made a complaint followed by notices which evoked no reply. No amount could be adjusted from out of his basic pension amount. The bank could not have recovered the amount from out of his pension without his consent which caused mental agony, and therefore he claimed refund of Rs. 14,837/- with interest @ 24% p.a., together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 3,000/-.
3) The respondent bank resisted the case. While admitting that the complainant was a pensioner and has an S.B. account with it, disbursing pension every month as announced by the government. It has informed the complainant that it had paid Rs. 60,000/- towards over payment and requested the complainant to repay the same in lump sum or in instalments. The Reserve Bank of India by circular Dt. 19.4.1991 authorized it to recover the amount on the consent given by the pensioner. The complainant by giving undertaking letter Dt. 9.3.1996 agreed for recovery of amount from out of his pension and as such accordingly they recovered Rs. 14,837/-. There was no mistake on its part nor deficiency in service, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked, while the respondent bank got Exs. B1 & B2 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering Ex. B1 letter of the complainant wherein he authorised the bank to deduct the amount from out of his pension opined that there was no deficiency in service on the part of bank and accordingly dismissed the complaint.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the fact in correct perspective. No reply was given by the bank to any of the notices issued by him earlier. He did not execute Ex. B1 letter at any time and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.
7) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant a pensioner opened an S.B. account with the respondent bank wherein his pension is being credited every month vide Ex. A1. He was withdrawing the same. While so, the bank had recovered an amount of Rs. 14,837/- from his S.B. account on 27.8.2004 with endorsement stating that it was towards excess payment of pension amount. After coming to know that the above amount was recovered from out of his pension, he wrote series of letters requesting the bank to furnish the statement of account. On that Ex. A5 statement of account was issued to him. The complainant himself admitted in Ex. A2 letter Dt. 28.8.2004 stating that
“Recently the Assistant Manager concerned advised me stating that there is excess payment and wants to recover the same withholding my pension payment immediately.
I am an illiterate, worked in the Engineering Department and trolley man in class-IV service, did not notice during my retired life, any major fluctuation in the pension payment.
Kindly do not with-hold my pension and arrange to supply drawn and due statement for my reference. “
8) He alleges that this recovery of Rs. 14,837/- was without his consent. He enclosed Ex. A4 wherein a statement of account was appended showing that an amount of Rs. 2,89,832/- was paid as against Rs. 2,14,995/-payable to him. The excess amount paid was Rs. 74,837/-. The bank recovered an amount of Rs. 14,837/- leaving a balance of Rs. 60,000/-. The bank alleges that this amount was recovered in view of his own undertaking Ex. B1 Dt. 9.3.1996, and also justifies by virtue of circular Ex. B2 issued by RBI wherein they were authorised to recover the excess amount paid in instalments not exceeding 1/3rd pension plus relief. A vague contention was taken by the complainant that Ex. B1 was not signed by him.
However, a perusal of it shows it was signed in the presence of Head Clerk and Senior Clerk of Railways. Except taking such contention he did not choose to file the affidavits of those officers who had attested his signature. The bank has proved beyond any doubt that by virtue of his own undertaking they had recovered the amount more so in the light of Ex. B2 circular issued by RBI. We do not see any irregularity committed by the bank in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
9) In the result the appeal is dismissed, however, no costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
Dt. 19. 02. 2009.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
