Delhi

New Delhi

CC/917/2013

Jaikaran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. State Bank ofPatiala - Opp.Party(s)

-

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/917/13                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Jaikaran Singh,

S/o late Sh. S.Singh,

R/o C-3, plot no.-20, Sector-6,

Dwaraka, Phase-I, Delhi-110045

 

……..COMPLAINANT

      

VERSUS

 

1. State Bank of Patila,

Through its Bank Manager,

Dr. Rajinder Prasad road, Shastri Bhawan,

New Delhi-110001

 

2. The Deputy General Manager,

SBP (Zonal Office), 2^nd floor, NBCC Place,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110001

 

3. The Pay and Account officer,

Central Pension Accounting Office,

Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India,

Trikkot II Complex, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi-110006

 

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

              

We have summarily considered the complaint of alleged deficiency on the part of OP, bank of Patiala, for not releasing his pension for 5 years and not crediting the same in his account in the bank. The facts show that complainant had opened an account in OP1 bank, when he joined service in Ministry of Rural Development in year 1977. He returned in 2001, and shifted to US in 2002. He once sent the life certificate, and thereafter the pension was stopped and bank account also closed. Later on he changed the bank, and arrears were to be credited in the new account in bank of Baroda. The complaint is filed alleging harassment by OP1 in not crediting his pension for long 5 years.

The OP in its reply has produced two letters written by complainant from USA to bank, vide Annexure 1 & 2 in which he has admitted that pension could not be credited for want of life certificate every year, and then he inadvertently closed the account and acknowledged to bank, the minimum balance went below Rs.20/- and the account itself become non-operative. The complainant has not disclosed these facts in his complaint. We find that complainant is simply dragging OP Bank, for no fault of them; no deficiency is proved on their part. The complaint is dismissed.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 27.11.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER