View 4539 Cases Against Punjab National Bank
View 4539 Cases Against Punjab National Bank
Punjab National Bank filed a consumer case on 01 Aug 2012 against Smt. Maya Gurwaryam Singh in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is FA/269/2011 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionUnion Territory,Chandigarh ,Plot No 5-B, Sector No 19B,Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160 019 | |||||||||||
FIRST APPEAL NO. 269 of 2011 |
1. Punjab National Bankthrough Jagjit Singh, Manager, PNB Sector 33, Chandigarh, holding General Power of attorney of the Punjab National Bank | ...........Appellant(s) | ||||||||||
Vs. | |||||||||||
1. Smt. Maya Gurwaryam SinghWidow of Late Major Gurwaryam Singh R/o H.No. 152, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh | ...........Respondent(s) |
For the Appellant : | Sh. Jagdish Marwaha, Adv. for the appellant, Advocate for |
For the Respondent : | Sh.V.P.Chatrath, Adv. for the respondent, Advocate |
ORDER | |||||||||||||||||||||
Punjab National Bank, through Jagjit Singh, Manager, PNB Sector 33, ….…Appellant/Opposite Party V E R S U S Smt.Maya Gurwaryam Singh wd/o Late Major Gurwaryam Singh r/o H.No.152, Sector 33-A, .…..Respondent/Complainant BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for the appellant. Sh.V.P.Chatrath, Advocate for the respondent. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.08.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant, and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant) as under:- “11. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OP to :- (i) pay interest on the arrears of pension at the Bank rate plus 2% penal interest for the delay in payment of such arrears (in accordance with Para No.40(i) reproduced above); (ii) pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment. (iii) pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 12. OP is directed to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order failing which, OP shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.6.10.2010 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation”. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant is widow of Major Gurwaryam Singh who died on 19.8.1969. After his death, a family pension (Special) was sanctioned to the complainant vide the Pension Payment Order (Annexure C-3). The said pension was 60% of the then emoluments of Major Gurwaryam Singh. It was stated that the complainant was receiving the said pension through the Opposite Party-Punjab National Bank, which is the notified Pension Disbursing Agency. The complainant kept on drawing the pension at the said rate upto December 1995. It was further stated that the salaries of the government employees including the Army officials were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Accordingly, the pensions were also revised. It was further stated that, as per the circular issued by the Central Government, the Opposite Party, was to re-fix the pension as per the revised rates, but despite this she was kept on receiving the pension at the older rates. It was further stated that in the month of February 2010, one Brig. A. S. Sibia (Retd.), who was the family friend of the complainant, visited her and enquired about her pension. It was further stated that after hearing about the quantum of pension being received by her, he asked her that the pension was revised and she was getting half of the pension payable to her. He also showed circular No.282 dated 6.8.2001 to the complainant whereby she was to get pension at the enhanced rates. It was clearly mentioned in the circular letter that the Pension Disbursing Agencies were to re-fix the pension, at their own, as per the revised rates of pension. It was further stated that the complainant visited the Bank and enquired as to why she was being paid less pension than her entitlement. However, the Bank officials told her that she was getting the pension, as per her entitlement. Dissatisfied with it, the complainant moved various applications and, ultimately, approached the Controller Defence Accounts. It was further stated that on the intervention of Controller Defence Accounts, the Opposite Party paid a sum of Rs.12,05,723/- without interest, being the arrears of pension, on 8.9.2010. It was further stated that she was entitled to interest, on the amount, aforesaid from the respective dates on which the payment of pension became due till 8.9.2010 i.e. the date on which the arrears were paid. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed. 3. In its written reply, the Opposite Party, stated that it was simply a Pension Disbursing Agency, and acts as an agent for the disbursement of pension. It was further stated that the Opposite Party had no power to enhance/rectify incorrect fixation of pension or misclassification of pensioner. It was further stated that as per Rules of the Government of India, category/classification of pensioner is always fixed by PCDA/parent organization of pensioner and not by the Opposite Party. Further, as per PPO No.M/FSPL/00275/2000, the complainant’s pension under Special family pension was fixed at Rs.3,840/- and there was no discrepancy or error in fixation of such pension. It was not denied that pension was paid to the complainant from 1.1.1996 to 8.9.2010 at unrevised rates, and the arrears of pension, in the sum of Rs.12,05,723/-, were paid on 8.9.2010. It was further stated that on account of misinterpretation of the letters, issued by the Government, a huge loss was caused to the Opposite Party for overpayments to the pensioners, to which the Auditors had objected and, therefore, the clarification was sought from PCDA vide letters dated 25.4.2010, 8.7.2010, 31.7.2010 and 18.8.2010. Thereafter, the arrears of pension were released to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant never approached the Opposite Party, for the grant of pension, on revised rates. It was further stated that, the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, submitted that the Opposite Party took a preliminary objection, in the written statement, that the complaint being misuse of process of law, was not maintainable, in the present form and was liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the pension related disputes could not be adjudicated upon under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the following judgments: i) Union of India Vs. State Consumer Disputes Commission and others, 2003(1) CLT-183 (P&H) ii) Krishana Kumar Gupta Vs. General Manager, Bank of India and others, 2003(2) CLT (NC). iii) Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. Gulab Devi 2003(2) CPC-657. He further submitted that the Opposite Party was neither negligent nor deficient, in releasing the pension to the complainant, in terms of the Pension Payment Order (Annexure C-3) of the Family Pension (Special). He further submitted that the Opposite Party had no power to enhance /rectify incorrect fixation of pension or misclassification of pensioner and, as such, the representation made by the complainant regarding wrong fixation of Special Family Pension on 04.03.2010 to it, was forwarded to the PCDA (Pension), Draupudi Ghat, Allahabad (UP) vide Annexure A-7, and after receiving the instructions, from him, the Family Pension(Special) was disbursed, and, as such, the Opposite Party was not at fault. It was further submitted that if there was any default, in the fixation of pension of the complainant, then it was of the PCDA, which was not impleaded as a party to the complaint filed before the District Forum. He further submitted that the District Forum erred in awarding interest and compensation together to the complainant. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the salaries of the government employees including the Army officials were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996. He further submitted that as per circular No.282 dated 06.08.2001 (Annexure C-4) issued by the office of the Principal CDA (P) Allahabad, the Pension Disbursing Agencies were required to revise the pension of the pensioners suo-motu, without waiting for any application from the pensioners, and without reference to the office of the Principal CDA (P). He further submitted that the complainant enquired from the Opposite Party, as to why she was not paid the revised pension. However, the Opposite Party told her that she was getting the pension as per her entitlement. He further submitted that it was only after the persistent requests made by the complainant that the Opposite Party paid a sum of Rs.12,05,723/- without interest, being the arrears of pension on 8.9.2010. He further submitted that the complainant is entitled to interest, on the said amounts, from the respective dates, on which the pension became due, till 08.09.2010 i.e. date on which the arrears were paid. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal, is liable to be upheld. 10. The first question, for determination, before us is, as to whether, the complainant is a Consumer, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The answer to this question is in the affirmative. In Jagdish Kumar Bajpai Vs. Union of India-IV(2005 CPJ-197 (NC), a case decided by the Hon'ble National Commission, wherein, after relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P.Shantha and Others, it was held as under:- “11. It is also to be stated that under the law, consideration can be in cash or kind. The definition of the word 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) provides that a person would, inter alia, be a consumer if he hires or avails of the services for consideration paid (paid in past or agreed to be paid in future including deferred payment). In consideration of service rendered to the Government till the age of superannuation, if right is conferred upon an employee to get pension as well as other benefits including medical treatment prescribed by various rules or the schemes framed by the Government, it cannot be held that it is a free service. Such employee would be a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Service rendered by the Government employees before retirement would be 'consideration' for providing medical facilities to him or his family members. Hence, it cannot be said that services rendered by the hospital which is subsidized by the Government is rendering service free of charge”. In the present case, the Opposite Party, being the disbursing agency of the PCDA/Parent organization of the pensioner, was rendering the services, by releasing the pension to the complainant and, as such, the complainant fell within the definition of a Consumer, as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is rejected. However, the facts and circumstances of the judgments, aforesaid, relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant, are entirely distinguishable, from the case, in hand, and, thus, the principle of law, laid down therein, is not applicable to this case. 11. Admittedly, after the death of her husband, the complainant was drawing the pension vide Annexure C-3. It is also an admitted fact that in the year 1996, the pay scales and pensions of Govt. Employees including the armed forces were revised. From the perusal of Clause 2(ix) of the Circular Letter No.282 dated 06.08.2001 (Annexure C-4) issued by the office of the Principal CDA (P) Allahabad and reproduced in para No.5 of the order of the District Forum, it is evident that the Pension Disbursing Agencies were required to revise the pension of the pensioners, suo-motu, without waiting for any application from them and without reference to the office of the Principal CDA (P). Otherwise also, as per the Circular Letter (Annexure C-4), it was the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to disburse the revised pension, to the pensioners, which it failed to do. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel of the Opposite Party, that the Opposite Party, had no power to enhance /rectify incorrect fixation of pension or misclassification of pensioner, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is rejected. 12. The next submission of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, that the interest and compensation could not be awarded together is also devoid of force because as per the letter/Master Circular-Disbursement of Pension by Agency Banks bearing No.RBI/2010-11/88 (DGBA.GAD No.H-2/31.05.2001/2010-11 dated 01.07.2010 issued by the Reserve Bank of India (at pages 129 and 131 of the District Forum File), the complainant was entitled to interest on the arrears of pension at the bank rate plus 2% penal interest for the delay in payment of such arrears as mentioned in para 9 of the order of the District Forum. Since the complainant was deprived of the amount of revised pension, due to her, for a number of years, by the Opposite Party illegally, and improperly, she was certainly entitled to interest, as per the Circular Letter, referred to above. The District Forum was, thus, right in granting interest to the complainant in terms of the aforesaid circular. 13. The fact could not be ignored that due to non-disbursement of the revised pension, on the respective due dates, the complainant certainly suffered a mental agony and a lot of physical harassment and she was forced to resort to litigation and, thus, she was definitely entitled to compensation on this count. In Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital Vs Bhupesh Khurana & Others, 1(2009)CPJ25(SC), the Apex Court, while upholding the order of the Fora below, regarding the refund of amount with interest @ 12% p.a., as also compensation of Rs.20,000/-, to each of the complainants, further directed the Opposite Parties, to pay additional compensation of Rs.one lac to each of them. In Paramvir Singh Vs P.H.Houses Pvt. Ltd. Revision Petition No.2779 of 2010 decided on 11.5.2011 the National Commission, in similar circumstances, upheld the grant of interest, on the refund of amount, as also granted compensation, to the complainant. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, that interest and compensation could not be awarded together, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 14. Taking all these facts into consideration, we are of the considered view, that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. The order, passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced. Sd/- August 1, 2012 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER cmg
Consumer Court LawyerBest Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.Bhanu Pratap
Featured
Recomended
Highly recommended!5.0 (615)Bhanu PratapFeatured RecomendedHighly recommended!ExpertiesConsumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes Phone Number7982270319Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee. |