Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1574/2008

LT. Col (Retd) R.M. Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The Principal CDA (P) - Opp.Party(s)

30 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/1574/08                           Dated:

In the matter of:

LT. COL.(RETD) R.M. AGGARWAL

53, SAINIK FARMS, DEFENCE SERVICES ENCLAVE

KHANPUR, NEW DELHI-110062.

……..COMPLAINANT

      

VERSUS

1. THE PRINCIPAL CDA(P),

ALLAHABAD (UP), PIN-211014.

 

2. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS,  WEST BLOCK-5, R.K. PURAM

NEW DELHI-110066.

 

3. BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK

        DDA COMPLEX, PITAMPURA, DELHI

 

4. SENIOR MANAGER, CANARA BANK,

DP 10-11,, LSC, PITAMPURA, DELHI-110088.

 

5. OFFICER INCHARGE, CANARA BANK

        F-19, III FLOOR, CANNAUGHT CIRCUS

        MIDDLE CIRCLE, NEW DELHI-110001.

 

6. GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK

        CIRCLE OFFICE, ANSAL TOWER

        38, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019.

 

7. CMD, CANARA BANK, BANGALORE.

 

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

              

The complaint is in respect of deficiency on the part of Canara Bank from where the complainant draws his pension. The Complainant returned from Army in 1986, but till date has not received difference of raise in pension for the period 11.07.088 to 26.07.088 and interest on delayed grant of gratuity. He took up the matter with Controller of Defence Accounts, Allahabad, which issued the PPO (Pension Payment Order) to Bank. The Bank official treated the complainant with apathy, and failed to resolve the matter and therefore he filed complaint in 2008.

Aghast at the insensitivity of OP bank officials, and long time so far, an interim order was passed on 15.09.11, noting facts in time and role & inefficiency of bank officers to help the retired Lt. Colonel of Army.

The Court passed the following orders as reproduced below:

“The complaint of Lt. Col. R.M. Aggarwal, who retired long back in 1986, is that he has not for received the raised pension from 11.7.1986 to 26.7.1988 including interest on gratuity.  He represented repeatedly to the Comptroller General of Defense Accounts (Pension) , Allahabad and to the Canara Bank, Pitampura.  He took up the matter with Cabinet Secretariat (Public Grievances), Ministry of Finance (Banking Division).  All this led the Defense Ministry to call reports from concerned offices to approach the Cabinet Secretariat.  Reminders were issued to Canara Bank.  Canara Bank vide letter of 30.6.2005 informed the complainant that it has taken up the matter with Principal (CDA) Pension, Allahabad for issue of duplicate PPO.  The CDA office forwarded the duplicate PPO to Canara Bank, Connaught Place for onward transaction to payments branch.  It appears that despite all these approach, the concerned offices again went into slumber, and till today he has not received the dues, and therefore, this complaint is filed.  It is seen that as late as on 6.8.2008, before the complaint was filed, Principal CDA(Pension), Allahabad vide letter 16.9.2008 advised Canara Bank to make the payment of arrear of pension.

 

The notice of complaint, in normal course should have stirred the concerned authorities into urgent meetings of CDA(Pension), Officers of Canara Bank and offices to sort out the muddle as there is no defense to the rightful claim of pension dues denied since 1986.  It is obvious that as the time has passed, the matter has become stale for the new incumbents in offices.  The notice has on the other hand only shown indifference to the complaint of retired soldier as much as Principal (P), CDA, Allahabd (OR I) and Comptroller General of Defense Accounts, West Block, R.K. Puram, have chosen to remain absent as they did not appear despite knowledge of case, as shown by order sheet of 16.7.2008  and were proceeded exparte.  The respondents 3 to 7 who are hierarchy  of Canara Bank offices of Delhi & Bangalore have filed a reply and sought time for evidence as if there existed a dispute to the solved by evidence.  The reply of the Canara Bank (OP3 -7) clearly show their awareness of the case of claimant, and they have also acted at different times, as shown by numerous correspondence between Canara Bank and CAD (Allahabad).  The reply clearly shows that duplicate PPO was issued to Canara Bank, with authority to pay.  Yet, the red tape has prevented the matter to go beyond formal writing of letters, rather than to a formal meeting of all concerned, including complainant.  It speaks volumes on sad state of affairs in public offices, which is not short of being insensitive to the matter and man behind the matter.  The complainant, who is now 72 years of age, and defended country for 26 years before retirement continues to be a soldier to fight those countrymen, whom he defended, when in Army.

 

The case needs no great hearing or evidence or arguments.  We are disturbed and would only say that if the concerned officers of OP-1 to OP-7 (in Govt. or Bank) do not sit together in a meeting to sort out the matter in a period of 1 month from today, the court would be left with no option but to take this case as case of malfeasance by public servants in concerned govt. offices and Bank and would order recovering arrears from their salaries to satisfy6 the dues of complainant besides compensation and litigation expenses with interest, as the Court may deem fit to order. 

 

This order should be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.

 

To come up for minutes of meetings of Canara Bank Officers, OP-1 and OP-2 on 2.9.2011.”

        

 

The Complainant reported that this interim order has not been carried out, nor there is any application on record from Bank OP to explain the action taken or impediments. In the circumstances, the complainant was asked to file the calculation sheet to order recovery of the due from the salary of bank officials.

He has submitted sheet (Annexure A) to this order, mentioning various dues on account of delays. He has prayed for compensation, interest for delay etc. Considering all the aspects of the case, we direct as under:

a.     Bank will pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for losing his PPO repeatedly, leading to delay in payment of pension till 2011 from 1986, and,

b.     We order simple interest @ 9% p.a. for the delay from 26.07.88 to 19.08.11, and,

c.      We order simple interest @ 9% on gratuity period from due date due till 05.07.088, when it was paid, and,

d.     We order interest @ 9% for the delay from 11.07.86 to 04.07.088 for the 1^st delay.

We allowed general compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency, mental agony to Sr. Citizen and litigation expenses from 2008 till now, and for his suffering delay in dues due to inaction or deficiency of bank.

We also hold the Canara Bank liable for malafide of its staff, Manager etc, positioned in the Bank from time to time, as public servants, and direct Bank to first make all payments and then recover the same from the Bank officials, who managed the Branches as Govt. Officials.

The order be complied within 30 days, failing which Chairman, Canara Bank, will be held liable for action u/s 27 of CP Act.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; failing which Chairman, Canarta Bank, will be held liable for action under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy be sent to be Chairman, Canara Bank, Head Office.

File be consigned to record room.

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

 

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 30.11.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER