1.         The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 04.09.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 79/2017 in which order dated 16.12.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 315/2016 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the orders of the State Commission and District Forum.

2.         While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as Bank) were Appellants before the State Commission and Opposite Parties (OPs) before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission in FA/79/2017 and Complainant before the District Forum in Complaint No. 79/2017.

3.         Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 06.12.2017.  Petitioner filed Written Arguments on 26.10.2018. On 29.01.2024 none appeared on behalf of Respondent. Accordingly, the Respondent was proceeded ex parte and case was taken up on merits.  However, in the interest of justice, respondent was granted one week’s time to file written arguments. The Respondent has filed the written arguments on 08.04.2024.

4.         Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -

(i)        The Petitioner Bank is an undertaking of Government of India.  The Petitioner Bank is governed by Punjab National Bank Pension Regulations 1995.  The pension in Petitioner Bank, alike other nationalized banks, is in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) and is paid only to those employees/dependents of employees who successfully opt for it and refunded to the Bank, with interest, the Bank’s part of contribution made to CPF and received by the employee. Late Mr. Om Prakash Malhotra was employed as Clerk/cashier with the Petitioner Bank and superannuated on 30.11.2007 without opting for Pension.   In addition to other terminal/retiral benefits, Late Om Prakash Malhotra was paid the accumulated amount of CPF including the Petitioner Bank’s contribution.  On 14.09.2010, Late Om Prakash applied for pension to the Petitioner Bank but did not refund the Petitioner Bank’s CPF contribution already received by Late Om Parakash Malhotra, hence the application was incomplete and remained unsuccessful.  Sh. Om Prakash Malhotra expired on 05.08.2014.  Smt. Asha Malhotra W/o Late Om Prakash Malhotra applied for Family Pension as widow of ex-employee of the Petitioner Bank but without refunding the Bank’s CPF contribution already received by Late Om Prakash Malhotra, hence the application was incomplete and remained unsuccessful.  The Petitioner Bank sent a letter No. 17325 dated 28.08.2015 to Smt. Asha Malhotra W/o Late Om Prakash Malhotra intimating that the Board of the Petitioner Bank has decided to give another option to pension optees who did not or could not refund the Bank’s contribution to CPF received by such pension optees, and intimated about approval of his pension case and advised to deposit the Bank’s contribution to CPF already paid to Late Om Prakash Malhotra being a sum of Rs.8,40,705.86 + interest @8.5% from 25.11.2010 to 31.03.2013 and @ 8.75% from 01.04.2013 till payment as per the provisions applicable to payment of pension.  On 01.01.2016, the Petitioner Bank paid to Smt. Asha Malhotra Rs.9,43,882/- as arrears of Basic Pension of Late Om Prakash from 27.11.2009 to 31.07.2014 and Rs.1,28,176/- as Family Pension arrears from 08.06.2014 to 31.01.2016 in Pensioner’s account.  On 11.02.2016 Smt. Asha Malhotra expired. Hence, the Family Pension was stopped by the Petitioner Bank. 

(ii)       Shri Rohit Malhotra S/o Late Om Prakash Malhotra filed complaint before the District Forum with the contention that the Petitioner Bank demanded and received refund of its contribution to CPF paid to Late Om Prakash Malhotra for paying the Basic Pension and Family Pension to Smt. Asha Malhotra and also demanded and received interest on such refund but paid the Basic Pension and Family Pension to Smt. Asha Malhotra without any interest and prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and interest @18% on the Pension paid by the Petitioner Bank. 

5.         Vide Order dated 16.12.2016, in the CC No. 315 of 2016 the District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-

“….Hence in these circumstances, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the interest on the amount of pension @8.5% from 25.11.2010 to 31.03.2013 and @8.75% from 01.04.2013 till payment of the pension amount as already charged by themselves on the amount of paid by them to Om Parkash Malhotra father of the complainant in lieu of pension in lump sum. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as consolidated compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

Orders be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. …...”        

6.         Aggrieved by the said Order dated 16.12.2016 of District Forum, Petitioners appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 04.09.2017 in FA No.79/2017 has dismissed the Appeal.

7.         Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 04.09.2017 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:-

(i) 

The service matter is beyond the jurisdiction of Forum or Commission under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.Both the Fora below have illegally assumed jurisdiction over pension matter, payable as part of retiral benefit as per service condition and relevant rules and regulation governing the employee.The Fora below failed to appreciate that if Late Om Prakash would not have been the employee of the Petitioner Bank, there would have been no question or occasion for payment of any kind of pension by the Petitioner Bank either to Late Om Prakash or his wife Smt. Asha Malhotra.The State Commission has made fundamental error and illegality in deciding that the Respondent, who was not even employee of the Petitioner Bank, to be consumer of the Petitioner Bank for the sake of receiving the pensionary benefits of his father Late Om Prakash.

(ii)

The Fora below erred in allowing the complaint only on the basis that the Petitioner Bank demanded and received interest from Late Asha Malhotra on refund of Bank's contribution to CPF paid to Late Om Prakash Malhotra for Smt. Asha Malhotra becoming entitled to Pension, the Bank must pay interest on the pension amount paid to Smt. Asha Malhotra.

(iii)

The State Commission failed to appreciate the ratio enunciated in matter of Savita Tiwari v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, 2016(4) CLT 115: 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2079, which followed judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in matter of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, Haryana, (2013) 10 SCC 136.

(iv)

The State Commission erred in distinguishing judgment in Savita Tiwari v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, 2016(4)CLT 115: 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2079, missing the ratio stated therein, by treating the refund of the Petitioner Bank's contribution in lieu of pension as consideration for pension, and by ignoring that the pension and related matter in the present case was a part of service condition of Late Om Prakash. The State Commission made fundamental error in treating the refund of Petitioner Bank's contribution to CPF in lieu of availing of pensionary benefit by Smt. Asha Malhotra as consideration for availing pensionary benefit.

(v)

The Fora below erred in treating the payment of pension by the Petitioner Bank as employer as provision of service to Smt. Asha Malhotra. The State Commission erred in relying upon the judgment in State Bank of Mysore v. S.K. Vidya & Anr. Reported in IV (2012) CPJ 174 (NC) which has become a case setting bad law after judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (supra) and various subsequent decisions of this Hon'ble Commission. The State commission misread and misapplied the judgment rendered in the matter of Regional Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi reported in III (1999): (2000) 1 SCC 98. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra) is clearly distinguishable as that was rendered on the interpretation of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder. In that case, Shiv Kumar Joshi was not an employee. Here Late Om Prakash was an employee of the Petitioner Bank and as such governed by the statutory rules applicable to their respective service and for the purpose of raising service dispute one would have to approach Industrial Tribunal or High Court but not the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

​

(vi)

The Respondent has no locus to raise any issue regarding the pension paid by the Petitioner Bank before any Forum under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission misread and misapplied the judgment in the matter of Regional Fund Commissioner (supra), which was a case between a Hospital and the patient and his relative. The State Commission committed illegality by allowing the Respondent to withdraw Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon for the reason that neither it nor the District Forum had any jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint of the Respondent. This sum was deposited by the Petitioner Bank as pre-deposit for preferring First Appeal No. 79/2017. The pensionary benefits, in the Petitioner Bank, are regulated by special law and cannot be bequeathed by beneficiary of such pensionary benefits. The reasoning given by the State Commission is perverse for ignoring the relevant regulation and circular relied upon by the Petitioner Bank.

8.         Heard Counsel for the Petitioner on 29.01.2024. None appeared on behalf of Respondent on that date. Respondent was absent on 10.12.2021 also. However, respondent was granted one week’s time to file written arguments, which was filed on 08.04.2024. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments and Oral Arguments advanced by the Counsel for the Petitioner during the hearing, are summed up below.

8.1       In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 7), the Petitioner contended that the District Forum allowed the complaint without deciding fundamental jurisdictional issue whether the complainant was a customer, and on the sole logic that since the Petitioner Bank got interest on refund of its part of CPF but did not pay interest on pension, it was against equity and natural justice.  The Petitioner Bank filed Appeal before the State Commission on the ground that District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the Respondent was not a customer of the Petitioner Bank. The State Commission dismissed the appeal holding that the refund, by Smt. Asha Malhotra, of the Appellant Bank’s contribution to CPF paid to Late Om Prakash Malhotra for becoming entitled to pension along with interest was consideration to get Family Pension, and upheld the logic/reasoning of District Forum that the Bank having taken interest on refund of part of CPF must pay interest on pension. The Fora below failed to appreciate that the issue raised by the Respondent related to the Payment of interest on the terminal benefits payable to Late Sh. Om Prakash Malhotra/his wife late Smt. Asha Malhotra. Petitioner, in support of his contentions, has relied upon upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sain Bhagat vs. Director Health Services Haryana reported in 2013 (10) SCC 136, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 20 and 21 has been pleased to hold as under:-

“20. In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act.

21. In view of the above, we hold that the government servant cannot approach any of the forum under the Act for any of the retiral benefits."

It is further contended that National Commission has also taken a similar view viz., that the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be invoked to deal with service condition /service matters /retiral benefits, among others, in the matter of (a) Savita Tiwari v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (supra) (b) Sheo Muni Prasad v. General Manager, Northern Railway, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 4171 (c) Sub-Division Engineer (L&B) Telecom v. M. Sambasiva Rao, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2529 (d) Executive Engineer v. Maruti Ananda Aware, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3356. It is further contended that the Pension is payable to the employees in the Petitioner Bank in terms of Punjab National Bank Employees Pension Regulation 1995, which have been framed by the Board of Directors of Punjab National Bank in consultation with RBI and with the previous sanction of Central Government in exercise of their power under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (A&T Undertakings) Act, 1970. In the said statutory Pension Regulations, there is no provision for payment of interest.

8.2       Respondent has contended in his written arguments that the father of the complainant was working with Petitioner as clerk/ Cashier and he retired on 30.11.2007. He did not opted for pension scheme. The father of the complainant expired on 5.8.2014. The mother of the complainant applied for pension scheme. The said application was allowed on 21.08.2015 and Petitioner bank directed to deposit employee contribution i.e. Rs.8,40,705.86 along with interest @ 8.5% from 25.11.2010 to 31.3.2013 and interest @ 8.75% from 01.04.2013 till the date of payment. The complainant arranged the amount and deposited the same with the Petitioner- Bank i.e. Rs. 8,40,705.86 along with interest which comes to Rs.11,89,620/-. Thereafter message was received from the bank regarding shortage of interest amount of Rs.72,500/- which was also deposited. In total the complainant deposited an amount of     Rs.12,62,120/-. Upon receipt of contribution money along with upto date interest the Respondent- Bank sanctioned the pension arrears of Rs. 9,43,882/- on 01.01.2016 and Rs.1,28,176/- on 31.01.2016. The said pension arrears was paid without interest. Then the mother of the complainant expired on 11.02.2016. Since the pension arrears was paid without interest, the complainant filed the consumer complaint as the action of the Respondent bank amounts to unfair trade practices. The District Forum allowed the complaint holding that the action of the Petitioner Bank for charging interest from the complainant and not paying interest on the pension arrears is against the principles of natural justice/unfair trade practices. The State Consumer Commission also dismissed the Appeal filed by the Bank. Both the Fora have allowed the complaint. Having lost before two fora below, the Bank has now filed the present Revision Petition on the ground that the consumer court has no jurisdiction in the affairs of service matters. It is contended that the Fora below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction as well as they considered all the material available on record and hence there is no illegality in the judgments passed by them. The ground raised by the Bank that the consumer court has no jurisdiction in the affairs of service matters is completely misplaced as there is no issue of service matter rather the issue is unfair trade practices. It is the admitted case of the Petitioner- bank that they charged interest on the contribution of the retired employee and when they paid the arrears of pension, it was paid without interest. This clearly amounts to unfair trade practices. The State Commission has relied upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Commission in the case of State Bank of Mysore Vs. S.K. Vidya reported in IV (2012) CPJ 174 (NC) and held that the action of the Bank amounts to unfair trade practices. The State Commission has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi wherein it is observed that EPF scheme amounts to service and their members are consumer. The State Commission has further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case titled M/s. Spring Meadown Hospital & Anr. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahuliwalia & Anr. JT 1998 (2) SC 620 wherein it has been held that the beneficiary is a consumer.

9.         We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum and other relevant records.  In this case there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioners herein. The State Commission has duly addressed various contentions raised by the parties and the case laws relied upon by both sides before coming to its conclusion. The State Commission has given a well-reasoned order and we find no reason to interfere with its findings.

10.       Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are in agreement with the contentions of the Respondent herein that the matter is not per se a service matter, rather the issue is of unfair trade practice/principals of natural justice, under which the Bank, for getting the refund of the employee contribution has charged interest, but on paying the pension, which was due from an earlier date, is hesitant to pay interest at the same rate.  Allowing of the application by the Bank for opting to pension is not in dispute.  The said application was allowed on 21.08.2015 and the Petitioner Bank directed to deposit employee contribution with interest @8.5% from 25.11.2010 to 31.03.2013 and interest @8.75% from 01.04.2013, which was duly paid.  The Bank sanctioned pension arrears on 01.01.2016 and 31.01.2016. Hence, concurring with the findings of the Fora below, we are of the considered view that the State Commission/District Forum were justified in allowing interest on the arrears of the pension.   We find no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission, hence, the same is upheld. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.

11.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.