Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/138/2018

Punjab National Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nitya Nand Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Brijesh Sharma, Adv.

29 May 2018

ORDER

As per office report, record of the District Forum has been received.

                Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 33 days as per the applicants/appellants (as per the office report 23 days), in filing the appeal, has been filed.

                Before the District Forum, it was grievance of the respondent/complainant that the appellants (Punjab National Bank) made wrong entries qua his separate credits made against different heads after 30.06.2017. The respondent/ complainant approached the Bank. The respondent/ complainant was receiving pension and family pension and separate entries were being  made but after June, 2017, the appellants Bank unilaterally changed the system and started making only single entry reflecting both the pensions and the TDS instead of separate entries, which caused confusion. It was not known to him as to how much TDS was deducted from each pension. He approached the Bank for making separate entries but failed to get any relief. Qua wrong entries made starting from 30.06.2017, when he failed to get response from the appellants/opposite parties, he approached the District Forum by filing complaint on 01.11.2017. Notice of the complaint was sent through registered post. When none put in appearance, by raising presumption under Regulation 10(2) of Chandigarh Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, the appellant (Bank) was proceeded against exparte. Thereafter, impugned order was passed, directing the Bank to correct the entries made and for providing deficient services, the Bank was also burdened with a meager compensation  of Rs.5,000/-.

                It is specifically admitted at the time of arguments that after passing of above order, when the respondent/complainant presented one photocopy of order passed before the Bank Authorities, on 13.04.2018, correction was made and it was intimated vide letter dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure A-4) that the system has been corrected and detailed information will be supplied in future. Even therein, it was not committed that the past entries will also be corrected.

                Above fact clearly indicates that the authorities acted only when they received order passed by the District Forum. Simple grievance of the respondent/complainant was not addressed in a period of more than eight months. The consumer was treated like dirt. Now this appeal filed is barred by limitation and an application has been filed to condone the delay in filing the same. There is nothing on record to show that at which stage, the time was taken to take a decision to file appeal. Not only as above, on merits also, Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties has failed to show us any defect in the order passed. The deficiency in providing service is virtually admitted on record. No interference is called for. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.

                Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.