Delhi

East Delhi

CC/152/2015

SHIV KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2018

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        152/2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution      –       04/03/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on              19/09/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order         -           24/09/2018 

                                                                                                       

In matter of-

Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, adult  

R/o- 102, Moreshwar Complex

Nr Shilp Chauk, Sector 21,  

Khardar, Navi Mumbai, 400021………...………..…..…………….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                         Vs

The Branch Manager

State Bank of India, Swasthya Vihar Branch

Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092…………………….Opponent

 

Complainant’s  Advocates        Md Anita Marathe,  MAH- 2323/92, Mr Ashutosh Marathe, MAH -6255/09

                                                       & Vidhya Wakale- Advocates     

Opponent Advocate                   Vijay Prakash, D-321/80             

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                    

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur     Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

 

Brief of the case-                                                                                            

Complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 in this Forum for deficiency of OP/ SBI, branch at Swasthya Vihar, Delhi for taking interest on Pension amount against the order of Hon. State Commission, Mumbai where he received Pension amount Rs 37,99,439/-.

Facts-

The complainant, residing at Navi Mumbai, was a holder of Pension Payment Order (PPO) no. 572880601951 as per Central Pension Accounting Office (CPAO) letter 12 March 2007(Exhibit A) and had Pension account at Bund Garden Road branch, Pune where his monthly pension was credited a sum of Rs 18375/-from 01/01/2007.

Complainant had filed a complaint case before Hon. State Commission, Mumbai, vide CC-104/2012 for redressal of his pension benefits (Anne.A to U). Opponent/ SBI Pune branch submitted written statement and denied any deficiency in their services and also stated that present commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as matter pertains to the pension benefits pertaining to Govt services. (Ex OPW1/1) page 79 of the present complaint. But during the pendency of complaint, OP home branch through CPAO, paid a sum of Rs. 37,99,439/-to the complainant, so the complainant filed an application for withdrawal of his complaint and the same was disposed off as withdrawn by the order of the State Commission, Mumbai annexed as EX CW1/1 which says that -

“the complainant wants to withdraw the complaint as the opponent has paid pension amount of Rs 37,99,439/-. The complainant further states that now the issue of payment of interest and compensation is to be resolved and for that purpose the complainant wants to withdraw the complaint and file the same before the District Forum. We have verified the contents of the application filed by the complainant himself. Permission to withdraw the complaint is granted and the complaint is disposed off as withdrawn with no order to cost”. Dated 21/11/2013.

The complainant stated in his complaint same facts as filed before the State Commission, Mumbai and further stated that complainant had pension account at present OP branch at Swasthya Vihar, Delhi, so OP were deficient in delayed paying of interest which has caused mental harassment and claimed relief through this Forum as 15% interest on Rs 1305639/- on monthly pension from 01/01/2007 to 05^th March 2013 and Rs one lacs for mental harassment and Rs 50,000/- cost of litigation.  

OP/SBI Swasthya Vihar, Delhi Branch submitted written statement and denied all the allegations of deficiency in their services and unfair trade practice. It was stated that the present complaint was devoid of merits as complainant had filed his complaint on the same facts before the Hon. State Commission, Mumbai vide CC104/2012 which was withdrawn on 26/11/2013, where a sum of Rs 37,99,439/- were paid as pension dues and complainant had stated in his withdrawal application before State commission, Mumbai that he wishes to file his complaint for pension benefits and interest on pension amount. So liberty was granted. But complainant had chosen present branch as main opponent where no cause of action ever here arisen. All the transactions and payments were done from Pune branch so complaint be dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.

It was also stated that no fresh cause of action ever arose in Delhi, rather OP branch was a facilitator not an service provider, so complainant was not a consumer under the Act. Also his pension account was maintained at Pune vide account no. 0119006709 at Bund Garden branch, Pune and residing at Navi Mumbai. The present branch forwarded PPO to the Treasury at Collector compound, Pune.

It was further stated that complainant had to complete certain requirements as per the guidelines of CPAO as Life certificate and Letter of Undertaking at Pune which he did not comply for long which caused delay at the main branch, hence there was no deficiency with present OP at Delhi branch

It was stated that complainant never informed Pune branch about the status of PPO nor closed his pension account with Pune branch and also not completed required formalities with Pune branch, It was duly informed the complainant about completion of formalities at present OP branch so that necessary correction and forwarding could be completed. The PPO was sent to the CPAO. The PPO was later sent to CBDT with ref to CPAO/A-2/Vo-I/74/P-30 and complainant was also informed to get in touch with CBDT for necessary required informations to be completed, but complainant sent legal notice on 07/01/2012 alleging false allegations against OP whereas detailed correspondence annexed here as Anne.  A-colly. Hence, this complaint be dismissed as devoid of merits and jurisdiction.   

Complainant did not file rejoinder, but filed his evidences on affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that all his contents were correct and had not hidden any fact or evidence. All the evidence were on records (Ex CW1/A to U). It was admitted that his grievances for nonpayment related pension benefits and as his pension was paid by Pune branch during pendency of his complaint before The State commission at Mumbai where complaint was withdrawn with liberty to get his grievances redressed before the Forum, so he file d his complaint in this Forum.  

OP also filed their evidences on affidavit through Mr Vijay Kumar, Chief Manager at OP/ Swasthya Vihar branch at Delhi and he affirmed on oath that all the allegations against OP were false and incorrect and it was stated that complainant had withdrawn his complaint at Mumbai which too was filed on wrong territorial jurisdiction as Commission had no power to entertain pension benefit related complaint. It was stated that premium pension amount was paid by Pune branch as soon as formalities were received completed so taking interest or compensation, Pune branch was competent as main cause of action had arisen at Pune and not before this branch or Forum. Hence, version of OP with evidence were correct and be accepted. OP also filed their written arguments. Taken on record.   

Arguments were heard from OP counsel as complainant or his counsel did not appear. File was perused and seen all the evidence on record so order was reserved.

We perused the facts and evidences submitted by complainant and OP which were on record. Before coming to the merit of this complaint, we emphasized on –

1. Whether complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act in ref. to his grievances which pertains to pension benefits under this Forum’s jurisdiction?
2. Whether any cause of action ever arisen under territorial jurisdiction of this Forum?

1. Pension benefits under this Forum’s jurisdiction? - We have gone through the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court pertaining to pension related benefits claimed by the complainant in judgment as “Dr Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs Dir. Health Services, Haryana & others” CA-5476/2013 decided on 13/07/2013 by Hon B S Chauhan & S A Bobde JJ, where it was laid down that in para 16, which reads as under-

by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF o any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The Govt servant does not fall under the definition of a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such Govt 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 grievances may be the State Administrative Tribunal, or Civil Court, but certainly not a Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Para 17-  

In view of the, we hold that the Govt servant cannot approach any of the Forum under the act for any retiral benefits.

So complainant is not a consumer as per the Act, hence, complaint deserves dismissal. Hence taking facts and issues in this complaint and reference of citation (supra), there is no merit, so complaint deserve to be dismissed, so dismissed with cost Rs 5000/- which is to be deposited in the Legal Aid Account maintained by the East District Legal Authority at Karkarduma Court within 15 days from the receiving of this order copy and compliance of this order’s acknowledgement be submitted in the case file within 30 days.  

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Regulations and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari – Member                                                                                  Mrs –Harpreet Kaur- Member                                                

 

                                       

                                                     Shri Sukhdev Singh - President