Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/50

Baljinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab&Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Manpreet Singh

22 Jan 2015

ORDER

      DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        50

Date of Institution :  25.04.2014

Date of Decision :    22.01.2015

 

Baljinder Singh s/o Gurdeep Singh retd Teacher, Holder of PPO No. 146020/Pb, r/o New Cantt Road, St No. 6, Faridkot, Tehsil and Distt Faridkot through his Special Power of Attorney Sukhwinder Singh s/o Baljinder Singh.

                                                                                                             .....Complainant

Versus

1   Punjab & Sind Bank, Govt Brijindera College Branch, Faridkot through its Manager.

2   Punjab & Sind Bank, Main Branch, Faridkot through its Manager.

3   District Treasury Officer,  Faridkot.

                                      ....Opposite Parties(Ops)

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:          Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Manpreet Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh R S Kakkar, Ld Counsel for OP-1 & 2,

 Sh Satnam Singh, Sr. Asstt on behalf of OP-3.

 

(A K Mehta, President)

1. Complainant Baljinder Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab & Sind Bank etc/ Ops for making less payment of pension of Rs 1,02,743/-while making payment of monthly pension for the period from 1.05.2003 to 28.02.2014 and for seeking directions to OP-1 to make payment of less paid pension with interest at the rate of 18 % per anum from the date of making less payment till realization and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental tension and Rs 20,000/- as cost of litigation.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a retired Government Teacher and is holder of PPO No. 146020/Pb duly issued by A G Punjab, Chandigarh and after retirement, complainant was receiving his pension from District Treasury Officer, Faridkot w.e.f 1.05.2002 and he received his pension through Distt. Treasury Office up to 30.04.2003 as per rates of monthly pension mentioned in PPO; that as per policy of Government, it was directed that the payment of pension to the Punjab Pensioners would be made through Public Sector Banks w.e.f 1.05.2003; that complainant was having saving bank account bearing no. 3457 with OP-1 and he opted to get his pension through P.S.B/Op-1; that complainant was entitled to draw his pension at the rate of basic pension Rs 3121/- per month plus allowances granted by the Govt from time to time and complainant was receiving his pension w.e.f 1.05.2002 from OP-1 as per relevant letter no. 16/29/79/FR (6)/13477 dt 31.12.1984, vide which Pension payments will be automatic and no bill will be required to be submitted and amount of monthly pension will be credited by the Paying Branch to his individual saving account at the commencement of the following month and Paying Branch will maintain a detailed record of pension payment made by it from time to time in the form prescribed; that every payment will also be entered on the disburser’s portion of the PPO and authenticated by the Authorrized Officer of the Paying Branch, but despite repeated requests made by complainant to supply the details of payment of pension credited in his account w.e.f 1.05.2003 till date, same have not been supplied to him and only entries in his saving account pass book are made; that having full faith in OP-1 Bank, complainant presumed that OP-1 would be crediting the correct amount of pension in his account, but suddenly, complainant found that Bank was making less payment of pension than that of his entitlement granted by Government from time to time; that his total entitlement comes to Rs 13,88,558/- and amount paid by OP-3 w.e.f 1.05.2002 to 30.04.2003 is Rs 54,132/- and amount paid by OP-1 w.e.f 1.05.2003 to 28.02.2014 is Rs 12,31,683/- i.e total Rs 12,85,815 meaning thereby that amount of Rs 1,02,743/- is paid less to complainant by OP-1, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused much harassment to complainant; that complainant made many requests to OP-1 to make payment of difference as per calculation, but they paid no heed and flatly refused to admit the claim of complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant; that complainant is also entitled to interest on difference alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- besides Rs 20,000/- as costs of the complaint along with main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3. The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 7.05.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4. On receipt of the notice, the opposite party no. 1 and 2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is barred bylimitation as claim sought is more than two years old and is not maintainable; that complainant is not the consumer of Ops and there is no contractual liability between complainant and answering Ops; that money/amounts being claimed are to be given by Government of Punjab and not by OP-1 and OP-1 does not suffer any loss, if amount claimed is paid to complainant as OP-1 is simply an agent of Indian Government and after crediting the amount in the accounts of pensioners, the same is got reimbursed from Govt of Punjab, which is a necessary party and OP-1 can be summoned only as a witness; that OP-3 is satisfied with the amounts paid to complainant and amount after being satisfied is reimbursed by OP-3 to OP-1 and 2 and if any wrong amount is paid by answering Ops to pensioners, then, that is not reimbursed by OP-3 and Govt of Punjab to the OP Bank; that complainant is not the consumer of OP-1, he can claim payment of amount, which is less paid, from OP-3 and on instructions of OP-3, same would be credited in the account of complainant. However, on merits, counsel for OP-1 and 2 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant never applied for supplying the details of payment of pension credited in his account w.e.f 1.05.2003 and statement of account is the only genuine document, which can be relied upon and which cannot be denied by answering Ops; that complainant should specifically point out that in which pension what amount is the difference as calculations must be made from the certified copy of statement of account and then difference in each monthly pension be pointed out and the same would be sent to OP-3 and after verification, the same would be credited in the account of complainant. It is asserted that payments made to complainant are correct and have been admitted by OP-3 and only then, these amounts were reimbursed to OP-1; that claim which is more than 2 years old, cannot be entertained and that is why monthly difference has not been calculated and detailed or otherwise there is no difference and this amount mentioned is hypothetical as without monthly difference, this amount can not be calculated and arrived at; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties; that all other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite parties.

5. OP-3 also filed reply and asserted that pension case of complainant was transferred to OP-1 at the option of complainant and thereafter, answering OP has no concern with the disbursement of pension to complainant and since 1.05.2003, pension is being disbursed by OP-1 and 2 and answering OP has nothing to do with the disbursement of pension to complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and all other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering OP.

          6.                                             Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them.  The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and documents Ex C-1 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

   7.                                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh Jatinder Pal Singh Sr Manager, Pb & Singh Bank, Branch Office, Govt. Brijendra College, Faridkot as Ex. OP-1-2/1 and document Ex OP-1-2/2 and then, closed the evidence. OP-3 also tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex Op-3/1 and closed the evidence.

   8.                                                             We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

   9.                                              The ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant is a pensioner of Punjab Government and initially his pension was being disbursed by District Treasury Office, Faridkot/OP-3, which arrangement continued up to 30.04.2003 and from 1.05.2003, the Punjab Government ordered to disburse the pension through Public Sector Bank and complainant was having a saving account in Punjab & Sind Bank, Faridkot and complainant opted to receive pension through Punjab & Sind Bank, Faridkot and accordingly thereafter, pension was being disbursed by the said Bank/OP-1 automatically. He contended that from 1.05.2002 till 28.02.2014, complainant received Rs 12,85,815/-as per his statement of account in the Pass Book Ex C-3 whereas total entitlement of the complainant was  Rs 13,88,558/- and as such, OP Bank made payment of Rs1,02,743/-less than the entitlement of the complainant. He contended that complainant approached OP Bank many times and requested for payment of less pension but with no effect and it caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complainant is also entitled to compensation on this account as well as litigation expenses besides payment of less pension alongwith interest. He contended that after reconciling the statement of account filed by the OP, complainant came to know that OP Bank has also made payment of Rs 22,193/- as pension to the complainant and as such, Rs 80,630/- was paid less as pension. He further contended that OP Bank further filed calculation sheet Mark OP-A and thereupon, complainant reconciled the statement again and filed calculation sheet and came to know that total entitlement of the complainant was Rs 13,48,290/- whereas Bank paid Rs 13,07,228/- to the complainant. He contended that this discrepancy came to notice after comparison of Pass Book with the statement of account Ex OP-1,2/2 and Mark OP/A and as such, Rs 41,001/- was paid less to the complainant as pension and complaint is required to be allowed and complainant is entitled to payment of less pension, compensation and interest as per complaint.

   10                                      OP-3 is appearing through representative and representative of OP-3 contended that OP-3 disbursed the pension only up to 30.04.2003 and there is no allegation of the complainant that pension was disbursed less during this period and as such, OP-3 has been wrongly arrayed as party in the complaint and complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP-3 with costs.

   11                          The ld counsel for OP-1 and OP-2 Bank contended that OP-Bank is disbursing the pension to the complainant as per directions of the OP-3/District Treasury Office and OP-1 and OP-2 are to be reimbursed by the Government through OP-3/District Treasury Office and as such, the OP Bank is not individually liable for payment of pension or interest. He further contended that OP Bank has made payment of pension to the complainant as per directions of the OP-3/District Treasury Office and as such, OP-Bank is not liable for any short fall in the pension or for any interest. He contended that complaint against the OP Bank is false and has been filed in order to harass the OP Bank and the same is liable to be dismissed.

   12                         After going through the record of the case and the evidence and documents produced on the file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered view that OP Bank has made payment of less  pension to the complainant and as such, is liable to make good the shortfall in the payment of pension. It is admitted fact in this case that complainant is a pensioner of Punjab Government and is receiving pension through OP Bank. The complainant has filed the complaint for payment of Rs 1,02,743/- on the ground that OP Bank has made payment of less pension of Rs 1,02,743/-. Complainant proved photocopy of Pass Book Ex C-3 alongwith  calculation sheet Ex C-4, which shows that total entitlement of the complainant for pension was Rs 13,88,558/-, whereas total pension disbursed to the complainant was Rs 12,85,815/- and as such, Rs 1,02,743/- was paid less as pension to the complainant. During the pendency of the complaint, OP also proved statement of account Ex OP-1,2/2. Then, after comparing the statement of account given in the Pass Book of complainant and statement of account proved by the OP on file and later on calculation sheet produced on the file by the OP as Mark OP/A, complainant initially alleged that Rs 1,02,743/- is paid less as pension and then, alleged that Rs 80,630/-is paid less and then alleged Rs 41,001/- is paid less as pension to the complainant. It is explained by the ld counsel for complainant regarding these discrepancies is that the Pass Book is not clear as to which amount relates to pension or which amount relates to other dealings of the complainant and the discrepancies in the less payment of pension occurred after comparison of the Pass Book with the statement of account and calculation sheet filed by the OP. As there was no clarity regarding exact amount which was paid less as pension to the complainant, OP Bank was directed to file statement showing due pension to the complainant and pension disbursed to the complainant and OP filed statement on 22.01.2015, which shows that Rs 13,48,552/- was due as pension to the complainant whereas Rs 13,13,118/-was disbursed to the complainant. This statement is also not disputed by the ld counsel for complainant and rather contended that complaint can be decided in accordance with the statement filed by the OP on 22.01.2015, but complainant may be granted interest on less payment of pension made by the OP Bank.

   13                                      As per due drawn statement filed by the OP Bank on 22.01.2015, it is clear that entitlement of the complainant to receive pension was Rs 13,48,552/-, whereas OP Bank disbursed Rs 13,13,118/-as pension to the complainant  and  admittedly OP Bank have disbursed Rs 35,434/- as less pension to the complainant and complainant is entitled to recover the same from the OP Bank. It is the duty of the OP Bank to disburse the correct pension to the complainant failing which OP Bank is liable to pay interest on the less  pension. The complainant has prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per anum on the payment of less  pension but the ld counsel for OP contended that complainant is not entitled to interest at the rate of 18 % per anum, which is exorbitant rate of interest. Reserve Bank of India vide letter no DGBA.GAD No.A-6760-45.01.001.2011-12 dt April 13, 2012 directed all the Banks to make payment of Rs 8% interest on delayed, revised pension or on arrears of pension etc.

   14                             The ld counsel for complainant also referred case titled as Maha Singh Sinhmar Vs State of  Haryana 1995(1)RSJ page 643, in which 18 % interest on delayed payment of pension was allowed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Same rate of interest was also allowed in case titled as Shambhu Nath Sharma Vs State of Punjab & another 1999(3) RSJ page 159. In the case referred by the ld counsel for complainant, the payment of pension was not paid at all and was made with delay, whereas in the case in hand, pension was being  disbursed by the OP Bank though less payment of pension was being made by the OP Bank and in this eventuality, complainant could be adequately compensated if he is granted interest at the rate applicable to Fixed Deposits and the present rate of interest is 9% per anum and the payment of this interest would be adequate compensation for the complainant for making good the loss on account of less payment of pension.

      15                                                   In the light of above discussion, complaint is hereby allowed partly with cost against the OP-1 and OP-2 Bank and complainant is held entitled to 9% interest on the amount paid as less pension to the complainant i.e Rs 35,434/- month to month wise from the date it became accrued till realization of the less pension. Complainant is also entitled to Rs 5000/-as litigation expenses as complainant was compelled to file the complaint when OP Bank failed to make payment on the repeated requests of the complainant. OP Bank is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

   Announced in open Forum:

   Dated: 22.01.2015

   Member                Member       President     (Parampal Kaur)    (P Singla)          (A K Mehta)