In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 453 / 2009.

1)                   Lt. Col. (Retired) Puran Singh,

Hastings Court, Flat No. “1C’, Tower “A”,

96, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata-23.                                                                    ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   State Bank of India,

Fort William Branch, P.S. Maidan, Kolkata-21.

2)       The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Fort William Branch, P.S. Maidan, Kolkata-21.

3)       The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, CC-IV,

DK Block Sector II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-91.                                                    ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.                                                        

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,Member

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member

Order No.   31    Dated  28/01/2013.

            The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a retired military officer and was entitled to receive provident fund as well as the pension from the Union of India in lieu of the services rendered by him to the army during his tenure of service to the nation. It is further stated that for the purpose of accumulating his retrial benefits the complainant opened the aforesaid pension account with the o.p. no.1.

            The complainant states and submits that the complainant hired banking services of o.p. no.1 by opening the aforesaid account for a consideration which has been paid out of the margin on interest earned by o.ps. from the money kept in the account of complainant being maintained with o.p. no.1.

            The complainant further states that after his retirement from his services the complainant started running a business of security agency under the name and style of M/S EAGLE’S EYE SECURITY AGENCY and pertaining to the said business of the complainant some disputes and differences had cropped up between the complainant and the o.p. no.3. In this connection it may be stated herein that the complainant runs the said business for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

            The complainant further states that in connection with the said business of the complainant the o.p. no.3 initiated a proceeding u/s 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952 and demanded certain amount of money from the complainant towards the compliance of the assessment made u/s 7A. It is further stated that the complainant challenged the said illegal and arbitrary action on the pat of the o.p. no.3 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bearing W.P. No.14822 (W) of 2009 and the same is still pending for disposal before the Hon’ble High Court. However, a notice of the said proceeding was duly served upon the o.p. no.3.

            The complainant further states that that all on a sudden the o.p. no.2 wrote a letter dt.14.8.09 addressed to the complainant wherein it was stated by him that he had allegedly debited an amount of 2,81,630/- from the said account of the complainant and had remitted the same to the Assistant

Provident Fund Commissioner, Compliance on the said date itself.

            Thereafter, complainant was shocked and surprised to note the contents of the aforesaid letter of o.p. no.2 and also his conduct in as much no banking norms, rules and/or law empowers the o.p. no.2 to transfer an amount from the account of one of the consumers of them to the account of any other person(s) without a sufficient document being executed by the said consumer from whose account such transfer is sought to be made.

            Complainant upon receive of such a letter dt.14.8.09 wrote a letter dt.28.8.09 wherein it was categorically stated that the action of the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2 was highly illegal. It is further stated that thereafter the complainant once again instructed his learned advocate Mr. U.C. Jha to send a demand notice to o.p. no.2 and such demand notice was sent to o.p. no.2 through a letter dt.12.10.0-9 wherein a demand was made before the o.p. no.2 to credit the said amount of Rs.2,81,630/- to the account of complainant.

            The said letter dt.12.10.09 was duly received by o.p./ no.2 and was replied to through their letter dt.24.10.09 addressed to the said ld. advocate of complainant. Complainant further states that the said action on the part of the o.ps. is in gross violation of the provisions of Section 8F (3) (iii) of the said Act, as no notice of he said intention of o.p. no.3 was ever served upon the complainant at any point whereas the service of the notice is mandatory under the provisions of the said Act.

            It is further submitted that o.p. nos.1 and 2 was well aware of the fact that the aforesaid account of the complainant being maintained with o.p. no.1 was a pension account and the same could not have been attached under the provisions of section 10 of the said Act and hence o.p. nos.1 and 2 by remitting the aforesaid amount of the pension account of the complainant. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            All o.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. ld lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. Herein the instant case o.p. nos.1 and 2 SBI and o.p. no.3 is the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. From the record we find that the complainant is a retired Lt.. Col. and after his retirement he used to draw pension from his SB A/C of o.p. nos.1 and 2. Besides it is evident from the record that complainant used to run a security agency for his livelihood in the name and style of ‘M/S EAGLE’S EYE SECURITY AGENCY’. It is the statutory provision of the Employees Provident Act that is any company runs business comprising 20 or above employees the said company falls within the purview of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952. It is the case of the o.ps. that on enquiry they came to know that in the company of the complainant there were more than 20 employees and o.p. no.3 had claim of Rs.23,33,842/- from complainant’s company. It is admitted position that o.p. no.3 has been empowered by the provisions of Act having the same power like Civil Court and o.p. no.3 by passing an order directed o.p. nos.1 and 2 to deposit with o.p. no.3 a sum of Rs.2,81,630/- lying in the SB A/C of the complainant where in the pension of the complainant is being deposited by attaching the said amount.

            Now only point is to be considered whether o.p. no.3 can attach any sum lying in the SB A/C of the complainant wherein his pension amount is being deposited by the pension sanctioning authority.

            It is a well settled principle that as soon as the pension amount is deposited in the SB A/C of the complainant by the pension sanctioning authority, the said sum so deposited in SB A/C loses its character as pension and we do not find any lapse and/or deficiency on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2 while at a decision we have relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal published in II (2012) CPJ 140.

            In view of the above findings and relying upon the said decision as well as on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record we do not find any deficiency on the part of o.p. nos.1,2 and 3 and complainant is not entitled to relief from the Forum.

            In result, the case fails.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case stands dismissed on contest without cost against all the o.ps.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.