Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/712/2011

Amar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

27 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                        Complaint No.712 of 2011     

                                                                        Date of institution: 08.07.2011

                                                                        Date of decision: 27.01.2017

 

Amar Singh, Retired Inspector,  B.S.F., resident of VPO Kharwan, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar-135105, Haryana.

 

                …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. State Bank of India, Jagadhri (CD 0645), through its Manager.
2. Govt. of India Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate  General Border Security Force, Pay and Accounts Division, Pension -4, Section (No.PAD/29-43523 (152)/PN-IV/BSF/2007 Pushpa Bhawan Madangir, New Delhi-62, through its authorized officer.
3. Pay & Accounts Officer, CPAO, Department of Expdr. (MoF), Trikoot-11, Complex, Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi 110066 (Authority fro revise commutation).

                                                                                                                       …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER

 

Present:          Shri S.S Saini, Advocate for complainant.

                        Shri P.K Kashyap, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 and 3 already ex parte.

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESDIENT)

 

1.                      The present complaint filed by Amar Singh under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                     Brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant has retired from Border Security Force from post of Inspector and after retirement the complainant is receiving pension through respondents (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OPs Bank)  vide PPO No.240550728027  and account number of complainant is 10557038528. The pay scale along with other benefits of complainant was revised and as per revised pay scale, the total arrears of complainant towards the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of General Border Security Force Pay and Account Division, Pension –IV Section was Rs.3,68,330/- and the same has been deposited by the above said department in the account of complainant with OP Bank and OP Bank have only paid Rs.2,82,678/- in the month of December, 2009 and remaining balance amounting to Rs.85652/- is still lying with OP Bank and since 2009 the complainant has contacted the OP Bank several times for releasing the above said amount of Rs.85652/- but OP Bank is prolonging the mater on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, complainant got served the legal notice dated 27^th May, 2011 requesting to release the said amount of Rs.85652/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 2009 till realization but in vaiin. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable; there is no cause of action against the answering OP; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant is bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties; complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and has not come with clean hands; true facts are that the OP Bank has already credited a sum of Rs.1,68,853/- in the saving amount No.10557038538 of the complainant on 27.11.2009 as the Central Pension Accounting Office, Chandigarh sent this amount to the OP through the letter, No.240550728027 dated 27.08.2009 and one copy of the said letter had also been sent to the complainant by the said office for information. In the said letter it was mentioned that “Differential commuted value of pension payable by bank Rs.168853/- only”. Accordingly, the above said amount was credited in the saving account of the complainant and on merit controverted the contents of the complaint and reiterated the facts mentioned in the preliminary objection. Lastly, it has been prayed that complaint qua the OP No.1 be dismissed as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1.

4.                     OP No.2 and 3 were impleaded as party vide order dated 03.10..2012, however, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 27.11.2012.  

5.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant filed an affidavit as Annexure CW/A, letter regarding revision of pension dated 30.07.2009 issued by the Government of India as Annexure C-1, another letter issued by Central Pension account office dated 27.08.2009 as Annexure C-2, postal receipt as Annexure C-3, legal notice dated 27.05.2011 as Annexure C-4, letter issued by pay and accounts Officer to the Branch Manager, SBI dated 28.12.2011 as Annexure C-5, letter dated 23.11.2012 of second in command/ DDO B.S.F. as Annexure C-6, letter dated 09.11.2012 issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs along with receipt of Rs.85652/- as Annexure C-7, postal receipt as Annexure C-8; copy of legal notice as Annexure C-9, photocopy of letter issued by Assistant Account Officer as Annexure C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  

6.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP Bank tendered into evidence, affidavit of Shri Tilak Raj, Branch Manager as Annexure RA, statement of account as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Bank.

7.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

8.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that the pay scale along with other benefits of the complainant was revised as per revised pay scale the total arrear of the complainant towards Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of General Border Security Force pay and accounts Pension IV Section was Rs.3,68,330/-  and the same has been deposited by the above said Department in the account of complainant with OP Bank and OP Bank  only paid Rs.2,82,678/- in the month of December, 2009. The complainant has visited so many times to the OPs to release the said amount but all in vain. Learned counsel for the complainant referred the case law titled as Yash Paul Ahuja Vs. Chief Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank and Anr 2015(3), CPR 388 (NC), but the law cited by counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not helpful in the present case.

9.                     Whereas OP No.1 has stated in Para No.5 of the preliminary objection of the reply that a sum of Rs.1,68,853/- had already been credited in the saving account bearing No.10557038538 of the complainant on 27.11.2009 as the Central Pension Accounting Office, Chandigarh sent this amount to the OP Bank through the letter bearing No.240550728027 dated 27.08.2009. During the proceedings, the complainant made a statement before this Forum on 08.08.2012 that differential amount has been deposited in his account on 05.03.2012 i.e. after a period of near about 02 years and 09 months, so he is entitled to get interest on this amount. Meaning thereby that now the complainant has restricted his claim to the only interest amount as the amount has been allegedly given late.

10.                   After going through the contents of the complaint as well as well as evidence placed on file, we are of the considered view that complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora as the matter in dispute is between the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate General Border Security Force Central Pay and Account Officer (CPAO) Department of Expdr (MoF), New Delhi and relating to the revised pay scale amount etc. As per Consumer Protection Act the complainant does not fall in the definition of Consumer as there is definition in Section 2(1)(d).  

11.                   Moreover, from the perusal of Annexure C7 and C8 letter dated 09.11.2012 and voucher based for payment of Rs.85652/-, It is duly evident that dispute amount of Rs.85652/- has been passed by Assistant Accounts Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Pay and Accounts Division on 17.02.2012 and as per version of the complainant himself the said amount has been credited in his account on 05.03.2012, hence, on this account also there was no delay on the part of the OP No.1 Bank.

12.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that complaint of the complainant is neither maintainable nor complainant falls under the definition of consumer. Hence, the present complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. However, complainant is at liberty to approach the department concerned for redress of his grievances, if any, or to approach the appropriate Court of law, if so advised. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court: 27.01.2017.

                                                            (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                            PRESIDENT, DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

                                                                                     

                                                            (S.C.SHARMA )  

                                                            MEMBER.