Complainant Daljit Kaur vide the present complaint filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter, for short ‘the Act’) has prayed for its acceptance with costs and by way of issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite party namely: Punjab & Sind Bank; i) to remove/ discontinue the acts of negligence, unfair trade practice etc and to pay the balance dues amounting to Rs. 2,16,799/- with interest @18% PA, ii)  to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation, iii) to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of proceedings and  iv) any other relief  to which she be found entitled.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that she retired from the Department of Education, Punjab and has been receiving her pensions in her account with the OP Bank. However, the OP Bank has failed to pay her the full Arrears as per her entitlement in terms of the 1996 & 2006 Pay Revision Commissions and would not amend/rectify the figures even upon her asking and providing them with the correct calculations and hence prompted the present complaint with the desired reliefs as prayed, hereinabove.

3.       The requisite Notice cum Summons for appearances were served upon the OP Bank who appeared and filed its reply by way of evidence through its counsel submitting therein that the complainant has been paid all her dues in full, in terms of her entitlement (as is evident from the accompanying calculations) rather Rs.6,943/- has been paid in excess and hence the present complaint being bereft of any merit need be dismissed with costs. 

4.       The participating litigants produced their respective Affidavits and Documents in evidence etc to substantiate their respective claims that were duly studied/examined and evaluated. Also, the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels were duly heard and considered while adjudicating the present complaint.      The complainant has produced Ex.C6 being her affidavit duly deposing the pleadings made in the complaint and evidence produced during the proceedings; and other documents exhibited as: Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 to support its prosecution. The OP Bank in turn, has filed Ex.OP1 the affidavit of its Probationary Officer and Ex.OP2 being the statement of calculations of the Arrears. Somehow, the OP Bank has ignored to confirm that the veracity and correctness of its calculations stood duly confirmed from some mutually recognized and/or acceptable competent authority and the prescribed procedural guidelines etc also stood duly followed so as to reach the final figures, here.

5.       We have critically examined the available evidence on the record file so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for some documents ignored to be produced. We observe that the present dispute pertains to payment of Arrears (of Pay/ Pension & LTC etc) on account of Pay-Revision; somehow the complainant and the OP Bank have reached different figures while concurring on the basic pension of Rs.12,052/- as is evident from the Ex.C3, Ex.C4 and the Ex.OP2. We find that the Notification # 3/39/09-3FPPC/201 of 22.02.2010 (produced here as: the Ex.C2) need be followed to get the requisite assistance. The complainant has duly stated having followed the guiding contents of its paragraph ‘4’ and submitted the necessary information to the OP Bank, who however have totally failed to confirm and/or show during the entire proceedings of having followed the instructions contained therein especially those contained in the paragraphs ‘4’ and ‘6’. The OP Bank was duty bound (also as its collateral obligation to customer service) to get the Ex.OP2 calculations confirmed/approved from the one mutually recognized competent authority especially when the complainant was contesting its correctness/veracity. But for the reasons best known to the OP Bank alone it has been continuously insisting upon the consistency of its accounts throughout these years even at the face of regular protest by the subserviently positioned complainant. We do not approve of the same and categorize this act/omission (of the OP Bank) in line with the ‘deficiency in service’ under the Act. ‘Consistency’ has never been the virtue of good ‘customer-service’. Perhaps the OP Bank branch and its officials little realize the present day importance of customer service and the bank's obligations towards its consumers. Time is ripe to learn it now and learn it fast.

6.       In the light of the all above, we find the OP Bank callous in its attitude resulting into deficiency in service on its part in disbursement of the Arrears of Pay/Pension & LTC etc and thus ORDER the OP2 Bank Branch to prepare an exhaustive Statement on the pattern of Annexure-II in terms of paragraph ‘6’ of the Ex.C2 Notification and get the same checked for its correctness from the Audit Department of its Controlling Office (and if feasible also from the O/o the Accountant General, Punjab) and to remit the payable amount (if any) to the complainant besides to pay her Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation for causing undue harassment etc.; within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of the orders till actually paid.

7.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.                                           

(Naveen Puri)                                       President                                                                                          

ANNOUNCED:                    (G.B.S.Bhullar)                         (Jagdeep Kaur)

February 18, 2015.                        Member                                      Member

*MK*