PER:

Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11 and 12 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is beneficiary of the family pension scheme issued vide PPO/OA No. Punjab/1112002304 from the opposite party No. 2 and being credited in to the account No. 36429336835 with the opposite party No. 1 and as such, the complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. The husband of the complainant was in service of E.S.I Hospital and he expired due to his unfortunate death on 8.4.2015. The family pension of the said employee was being drawn by the wife of the deceased i.e. present complainant. Representation was made to the State Government for issuing family pension in the name of complainant, the office of account general i.e. opposite party No. 3 issued a letter dated 22.7.2016 to the opposite parties directing to issue the family pension of the husband of the complainant w.e.f. 22.7.2016 in her name, but the opposite parties till the filing of the complaint have not credited the said family pension in the account of the complainant with the opposite party No. 1 inspite of several requests and representations. The complainant is an old aged widow lady and she has got no independent source of income and moreover, the son of the complainant is having visibility of his eyes only to the extent of 10% approximately and they have approached the concerned officials opposite parties many times from time to time but all in vain and as such, it is very difficulty for them to approach the opposite parties time and again and the opposite parties are also well aware about all such facts. Despite all this, the complainant had fulfilled all the requisite formalities as per instructions of opposite parties and has also supplied all the requisite documents to the opposite parties as per their demands, but inspite of that the opposite parties have failed to credit the family pension in the account of the complainant for which the complainant is legally entitled. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties of not crediting the family pension in the account of the complainant is an act of deficiency in service, malpractice, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental pain, harassment, agony, inconvenience besides financial losses to the complainant for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to credit the family pension in the account of the complainant w.e.f. 8.4.2015 along with its up to date interest at the rate of  12% per annum from the due date till its realization and also to release the said family pension to the complainant and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-  to the complainant for harassment as well as mental agony along with costs of complaint to the tune of Rs. 11,000/-. 

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to opposite parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interalia pleadings that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer as per C.P. Act the complaint as such is not maintainable. The complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No. 1 on the facts and circumstances, the opposite party No. 1 is only to pay the pension or family pension as per the dictates of Punjab Govt. to the person opting to draw the same through SBI. As per the PPO deceased Parkash Singh issued by OP No. 3 on behalf of Punjab State to O.P No. 2, as provided to O.P. No. 1, there is no entitlement for any family pension as conveyed vide PPO No. 111202304. The claim of the complainant is against the records and is not tenable. The present complaint is malafide act on the part of the complainant roping in unnecessary controversy to the opposite party No. 1 for which the complainant is liable to be burdened is special cost along with the cost incurred by the opposite party No. 1 in defending such frivolous case. There are disputed and complicated questions of facts and law involved as per allegations contained in the complaint, the same cannot be adjudicated by this commission and requires adjudication from the civil court, the complaint as such is not maintainable before Consumer Commission. The complaint , even otherwise keeping aside the other aspects of the merits, is not maintainable against the opposite party No. 1 on the strength of the allegations, which are based on concealment of material facts. The complainant thus has not approached this commission with clean hands. The present complaint is false and malafide . The compliant has not come to this commission with clean hands. This commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertainment the present complaint. The complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct , omission and commission from filing the present complaint. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. No cause of action much less actionable cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite party No. 1. As per the records, the complainant otherwise is not the wife of the deceased Parkash Singh as disclosed to the competent authority prior to the retirement since in the columns of family it is described as NIL.  The alleged letter is of no avail for the complainant to claim anything contrary to PPO No. 1112002304 issued by Opposite party No. 3 for and on behalf of Punjab State favoring Parkash Singh as pensioner of the Punjab Government who was entitled for NIL family pension as per the records submitted by said pensioner to the State Government for drawing PPO regarding eligibility of pension to the said pensioner on retirement.  After being approached by the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 through written letters to OP No. 2 informing that name of family pensioner is not mentioned on the disbursal portion and the letter from A.G Office attested by District Treasury Officer is required mentioning the name of the family pensioner vide letter dated 10.7.2017 and letter dated 8.8.2017. Apart that the matter was taken up with the authorities concerned of O.P bank maintaining the records of PPO at their centralized office for disbursing pension/ family pension to the petitioners of the Punjab Government, who found no eligibility for any family pension to the benefit of Parkash Singh as per PPO provided by the A.G. Office for disbursal of the pension to Parkash Singh mentioned in the aforesaid PPO. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4        The opposite party has opposite party No.2 has filed written version by alleging that the present complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No. 2 as the opposite party No. 2 is neither the drawer officer nor disbursing officer of the complainant. The pension disbursing authority in the instant case is the concerned Bank i.e. State Bank of India Gopal Nagar, Branch Amritsar. The office of the opposite party No. 2 used to forward the pension papers of the pensioners received from the office of Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh to the concerned Bank as per the option of petitioner. There is no role of this office in preparing the pension papers of the pensioner and to disburse monthly pension to the petitioner. In the instant case, letter of complainant received from State Bank of India Gopal Nagar, Branch Amritsar bearing No. PEN/228 dated 8.8.2017 forwarded to accountant General (A & E) Punjab, Chandigarh vide this office letter No. 2248 dated 7.9.2017.

5        The opposite party No. 3 appeared and filed written version by interalia pleadings that mandatory notice under Section 80 C.P.C. has not been served upon the opposite party No. 3. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party No. 3 since the grievance of the complainant does not pertain to opposite party No. 3. The jurisdiction of this commission is challenged as neither the complainant is consumer nor the opposite party is seller.  As per rules, the complainant is beneficiary of the family pension scheme and entitled for family pension w.e.f. 9.4.2015 being the spouse of Late Sh. Parkash Singh. The office of opposite party No. 3 neither comes under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, as a seller nor is the complainant is a punter/ consumer for opposite party No. 3. Husband of the complaint was serving in E.S.I. Hospital. As per death certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation Amritsar, the date of death of the husband of complainant is 9.4.2015. While revising the pension/ family pension, the opposite party No. 3 appended clear cut remarks on the change in Rate issued vide No. Pen-08/2181102304/2016-17/16/15/80110495 dated 22.7.2016 whereby the complainant has been authorized family pension @ Rs. 4,014/- per month w.e.f. 9.4.2015 and after the death of husband of complainant. The payment of family pension is to be credited by pension Disbursing authority i.e. District Treasury Office/ Bank concerned (Opposite party Nos. 1, 2.) The office of opposite party No. 3 only authorizes pension/ family pension/ gratuity etc. and has no jurisdiction to disburse the pension/ family pension. The grievances of the complainant are not against the opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

6        To prove his case, Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. CW1/A along with documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajesh Kang Ex. OP1/1, copy of letter received from the office of Principal A.G. ( A & E) Punjab & UP Chandigarh addressed to the District Treasury Office, Amritsar Ex. OP1/2 and OP1/3, copy of the pension payment order Ex. OP1/4 and part 2 Ex. OP1/5, copy of letter from SBI, Gopal Nagar Amritsar to District Treasury Officer Ex. OP1/6, copy of letter from SBI to Ajitpal Kaur Ex. OP1/7, copy of the new family pension form Ex. OP1/8, copy of the opening page of book maintained by Centraised pension processing centre, Chandigarh in PPO of Paraksh Singh Ex. OP1/9 and closed the evidence.

7        Previously the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 appeared in the case but later on they did not appear, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

8        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and have gone through the record on the file.

9        The combined and harmonious reading of pleadings and document transpires that  the complainant is beneficiary of the family pension scheme issued vide PPO/OA No. Punjab/1112002304 from the opposite party No. 2 and being credited in to the account No. 36429336835 with the opposite party No. 1. The husband of the complainant was in service of E.S.I Hospital and he expired on 8.4.2015. Being wife Ajit Pal Kaur is entitled for family pension. On representation, the opposite party No. 3 issued a letter dated 22.7.2016 to the opposite parties directing to issue the family pension of the husband of the complainant w.e.f. 22.7.2016 in her name. Despite all requests, formalities as per instructions of opposite parties, the opposite parties have failed to credit the family pension in the account of complainant for which she is legally entitled to.

10      As per opposite party No. 1, the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No. 1 on the facts and circumstances, the opposite party No. 1 is only to pay the pension or family pension as per the dictates of Punjab Govt. to the person opting to draw the same through SBI. As per the PPO deceased Parkash Singh issued by OP No. 3 on behalf of Punjab State to O.P No. 2, as provided to O.P. No. 1, there is no entitlement for any family pension as conveyed vide PPO No. 111202304. However, the opposite party No. 1 has stated that as per record, the complainant otherwise is not the wife of the deceased Parkash Singh as disclosed to the competent authority prior to the retirement since in the columns of family it is described as NIL.  The alleged letter is of no avail for the complainant to claim anything contrary to PPO No. 1112002304 issued by Opposite party No. 3. After being approached by the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 through written letters to OP No. 2 informing that name of family pensioner is not mentioned on the disbursal portion and the letter from A.G Office attested by District Treasury Officer is required mentioning the name of the family pensioner  vide letter dated 10.7.2017 and letter dated 8.8.2017.

11      The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No. 2 is neither the drawer officer nor disbursing officer of the complainant. The pension disbursing authority in the instant case is the concerned Bank i.e. State Bank of India Gopal Nagar, Branch Amritsar. The office of the opposite party No. 2 used to forward the pension papers of the pensioners received from the office of Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh to the concerned Bank as per the option of petitioner. In the instant case, letter of complainant received from State Bank of India Gopal Nagar, Branch Amritsar bearing No. PEN/228 dated 8.8.2017 forwarded to accountant General (A & E) Punjab, Chandigarh vide this office letter No. 2248 dated 7.9.2017.

13      The opposite party No. 3 pleaded in their reply that since the grievance of the complainant does not pertain to opposite party No. 3 as such the complaint is not maintainable against them. Further the opposite parties admitted in their reply that as per rules, the complainant is beneficiary of the family pension scheme and entitled for family pension w.e.f. 9.4.2015 being the spouse of Late Sh. Parkash Singh. The office of opposite party No. 3 neither comes under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, as a seller nor is the complainant is a punter/ consumer for opposite party No. 3. Husband of the complaint was serving in E.S.I. Hospital. As per death certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation Amritsar, the date of death of the husband of complainant is 9.4.2015. While revising the pension/ family pension, the opposite party No. 3 appended clear cut remarks on the change in Rate issued vide No. Pen-08/2181102304/2016-17/16/15/80110495 dated 22.7.2016 whereby the complainant has been authorized family pension @ Rs. 4,014/- per month w.e.f. 9.4.2015 and after the death of husband of complainant. The payment of family pension is to be credited by pension Disbursing authority i.e. District Treasury Office/ Bank concerned (Opposite party Nos. 1, 2.) The office of opposite party No. 3 only authorizes pension/ family pension/ gratuity etc. and has no jurisdiction to disburse the pension/ family pension.

14      The opposite party no. 1 has taken the specific objection that on the fact and circumstances bank is only to pay the pension or family pension as per dictates of Punjab Govt. to the person opting to draw the same through SBI. As per the PPO deceased Parkash Singh issued by OP No. 3 on behalf of Punjab State to O.P No. 2, as provided to O.P. No. 1, there is no entitlement for any family pension as conveyed vide PPO No. 111202304. But we are not agreed with the opposite party No. 1 as the reply filed by opposite party No. 3 i.e. Principal account General (A & E) Punjab and in their reply it has clearly admitted that while revising of pension/ family pension the answering opposite party appended clear cut remarks on the change in rate issued vide No. Pen-08/2181102304/2016-17/16/15/80110495 dated 22.7.2016 whereby the complainant has been authorized family pension @ Rs. 4,014/- per month with effect from 9.4.2015 i.e. after the death of husband of complainant. It is further admitted that she is entitled for family pension after the death of her husband and not with effect from 22.7.2016. The payment of family pension is to be credited by Pension Disbursing authority i.e. District Treasury Officer/ Bank concerned.  The complainant has placed o record letter signed by senior account officer/ account officer as Ex. C-4 where by detail of family pension is explained and a sum of Rs. 4,104/- per month is shown as a family pension of Sh. Parkash Singh and on the said Ex. C-4 the office of account office has endorsed in hand written that “ The name of spouse  Smt. Ajit Pal Kaur wife of Late Parkash Singh mentioned in PPO No. 1112002304 and family pension is Rs. 4,014/- per month i.e. w.e.f. 9.4.2015 may be started/ paid the death certificate of Sh. Parkash Singh may be verified from Smt. Ajit Pal Kaur” . So, it is very much celar that the complainant i.e. Ajit Pal Kaur is wife of deceased Parkash Singh and PPO No. is 1112002304 and this letter clearly specified the amount of family pension i.e. Rs. 4,014/- w.e.f. 9.4.2015 and this letter has been issued by Senior Account officer and is admissible under Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, the death certificate of Parkash Singh is on record as Ex. C-3. Letter Ex. C6 is issued by Deputy Commissioner Amritsar and it is a legal heir certificate and Smt. Ajit Pak Kaur is mentioned as wife of deceased Parkash Singh.

15      We are of the considered opinion that Smt. Ajit Pal Kaur is wife of deceased Parkash Singh and he was employee of E.S.I Hospital of Punjab Govt. Parkash Singh was holder of PPO No.1112002304 and Ajit Pal Kaur is entitled to family pension to the tune of Rs. 4,104/- per month w.e.f. 9.4.2015. As per documents placed on record it clearly proved that Smt. Ajit Pal Kaur is entitled for family pension and upholding the family pension by the opposite party No. 1in arbitrary manner, it amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party No.1.

16      In view of above discussion we allowed the present complaint with the directions to the opposite party No. 1 to release/start the pension of Ajit Pal Kaur w.e.f. 9.4.2015 with subsequent revised pension from time to time as  per Punjab Government policy. The complainant being widow old lady has been harassed by the opposite party No. 1 for a long time. Therefore, the opposite party No. 1 is also directed to pay Rs 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand only) for mental harassment of complainant and Rs. 7,500/-(Rs. Seven Thousand Five Hundred only ) as litigation expenses. The present complaint against the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 is dismissed. The Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

22.09.2022