Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1795/2017

The Canara Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt.Iramma B.Revadi - Opp.Party(s)

Prashanth T.Pandit

28 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 1795/2017

 

The Canara Bank LVD College Bank, Raichur, Rep. by its Manager (By Sri. Prashanth T.Pandit ) V/s	….Appellant
Smt.Iramma B.Revadi W/o Late Basavaraj S.Revadi, Aged about 60 years, R/a H.No.8-11-181/844, Vidyanagar, Raichur (By Sri. M. Anandkumar)	..…Respondent

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The OP in C.C.No.99/2015 preferred this appeal against the order dated 09.06.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raichur which directed this appellant to pay amount of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service for not providing utility of ATM facility to the complainant.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that husband of complainant was a Government servant who died on 11.10.2004 and after his death complainant is entitled to get family pension and she is getting family pension through her SB A/c No. 2797101007615 of OP bank since from 2004 and she was withdrawing the amount from her account through ATM card bearing No.4214582797021012.  Such being the case in the year 2015 the complainant was unable to withdraw the amount through her ATM card and she approached OP.  They stated that the card was disabled due to instructions from the treasury.  The complainant was regularly using ATM card for withdrawal of pension amount, but, without any valid reason they disabled the ATM card.  Complainant got issued legal notice dated 19.10.2015 insisting for revoking of disablement of ATM card.  Inspite of receipt of legal notice OP neither removed the disablement of ATM card nor replied.  Hence, complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service.
3. After trial the District Commission allowed the complaint directing OP to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- against which OP/appellant is before this Commission. 
4. Learned Advocate for appellant vehemently argued that complainant was regularly using ATM card for withdrawal of the pension through her account bearing No.2797101007615.  Such being the case on 26.08.2015 this appellant bank received letter from District Treasury, Raichur stating that the complainant has withdrawn excess family pension which has to be reduced to normal pension rates and excess pension paid from 12.10.2011 to till date amount to Rs.1,40,138/-.  In the month of January 2016  they have received another letter from District Treasury, Raichur for recovery of excess pension paid from 01.11.2013 to 30.06.2015, being an amount of Rs.1,35,508/-.  Further on receiving such letters from the District Treasury, as per the request made by the District Treasury they wrote letter dated 19.012016 to the complainant for repayment of the said excess amount withdrawn to the tune of Rs.2,32,277/- and double pension paid from 01.02.2015 to 30.11.2015 i.e., an amount of Rs.1,13,936/-.  The bank has issued a letter to the complainant for return of the said amount within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said letter, but, complainant had not credited the same to the bank.
5. Appellant further contended that during month of February 2016 they have received another letter from Treasury Office for recovery of the excess pension from 12.10.2011 to 31.10.2013  for an amount of Rs.2,75,646/-.  The total excess pension paid to the complainant is Rs.4,11,154/-.  After repeated intimations given to the complainant over phone and through letters the respondent / complainant failed to rectify the problem and continued to withdraw the money from her account through ATM card.  Having no option this appellant constrained to deactivate the ATM card since she was withdrawing the excess amount without bothering about intimations given to her.  The deactivation of the ATM card is not intentional, but, as per the instructions given by the District Treasury, Raichur for recovery of the excess pension amount.  Hence, submitted there is no deficiency in service and prays for setting aside of the order passed by the District Commission.
6. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the impugned order, there is no dispute that husband of complainant was Government Employee and after his death the complainant being LR was entitled to get pension and accordingly, she was drawing pension every month through her SB a/c bearing No. 2797101007615.  Such being the case the OP bank has received a letter from District Treasury, Raichur for recovery of the excess pension paid to the complainant.  Totally the excess amount paid by the treasury through this appellant bank amounts to Rs.4,11,154/-, but, we noticed here that the complainant had not recredited the said amount to the account which was withdrawn even after several intimations. 
7. Subsequently, the matter was settled by way of giving letter to the treasury and bank by the complainant dated 08.03.2016 for recovery of excess pension at monthly instalments of Rs.2,500/- i.e., 25% of the pension and started recovery from April 2016 an amount of Rs.1,920/- every month.  When such being the case before they entered into compromise for recovery of excess amount paid through instalments complainant had not repaid amount or consulted with the bank for solvation of the problem.  Having no option the OP bank has deactivated the utilization of ATM card for withdrawal.  The District Commission failed to appreciate the defense taken by OP.  It is duty cast upon the appellant/ OP bank to take measures for recovery of the excess pension paid to the complainant as per the instructions given by District Treasury, Raichur.  The appellant has acted as per the directions given by the District Treasury, Raichur.  Hence, we found there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in deactivating the utilization of the ATM card for withdrawal.  The order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Commission is set aside.  Consequently, complaint is hereby dismissed.
8. The amount in deposit is directed to be refunded to the appellant/OP bank.

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

CV*