DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.311/2019
Dr. Sudershan Kumar Jain
S/o Late Shri J.N. Jain
R/o 130, Parshva Vihar, Plot No.50,
I.P Extension, Delhi-110092
….Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India
Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi-110023
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution :11.11.2019
Date of Order :05.01.2023
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking refund of ₹169 145 with 18% interest from the date of debit of this amount till actual date of payment and exemplary damages for illegal unauthorised transgressed Pawar used by the OP against the Complainant. The OP in this case is State Bank of India.
- The Complainant states that he has saving cum pension account with the OP Bank and his pension was sanctioned vide PPO no. 246501600488 dated 22. 04.2016 by POA(P&M) Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and the same was credited to the account of the Complainant at OP branch Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. The photocopy of PPO is enclosed as Annexure A 6.
- It is further stated that some dispute arose regarding pension of the Complainant with the department as a result of which the PAO(P&M) Ministry of Home Affairs vide their order no. MHA/PAO (P&M)/5595/2016-7/2293-96 dated nil requested bank to revert the amount of pension which was credited to the account of the Complainant. the photocopy of the order is enclosed as Annexure A 7.
- It is further stated that the bank illegally and unauthorised by debited the account of the Complainant of Rs. 1,69,145/- on 18.10.2016 though he had only received Rs.1,39,075/- as pension for 5 months@ 27,815/- for the period May 2016 to September 2016. It is stated that the bank has illegally and unauthorisedly debited the whole amount and in excess of amount of Rs. 30,000/-. The photocopy of the pass book is enclosed as Annexure A 5.
- The Complainant has written to the chief manager of the concerned bank branch of SBI but no action was taken by the OP. The Complainant has also lodged the complaint with the banking ombudsman, RBI on 21.08.2018 however, the complaint was closed by the banking ombudsman on 07.01.2019 basing its decision on the circular of the RBI.
- It is the case of the Complainant that the bank has no legal sanction or authority to withdraw the money from the Complainant’s account since the amount was legally credited to the Complainant’s account. It is stated by the Complainant that the letter of PAO is undated and illegal and violative of the right of the Complainant.
- It is further stated that the act of the OP in arbitrarily transferring the money from the account of the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service also as per the judgment in Dilip Madhukar Kambli vs Nilesh Vasant Borkar 1991(1) CPR 571 State Commission New Bombay. The Complainant has also placed reliance on the judgement passed in Chief Manager, Punjab and Sindh bank vs Punjab and Sindh staff Organization CPR(3) 1995 309SCDRC Punjab.
- The Complainant has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Organo Chemical Industries vs Union of India AIR 1979 1803 in which case the Apex court allowed 100% damages for the wrong done to the Complainant.
The OP stood served and collected copy of the complaint along with documents on 16.03.2020 and therefore he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 10.12.2021. The Complainant has filed his ex parte evidence as well as written arguments.
This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and has also perused the order of the MHA/PAO (P&M)/5595/2016-7/2293-96 dated nil wherein the Central Pension Accounting office was directed to instruct the concerned Bank to recover the pension already paid to the Complainant and credit the amount to government account. This letter was addressed to Central Pension Accounting Office and a copy of which was sent also to the Complainant as well as the manager, State Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, INA. We have also seen the circular of the RBI dated March 13, 2015 RBI/2014-2015/500 with Ref No. DGBA.GAD.No.H4054/45.03.001/2014-2015 which is addressed to the chairmen/ CEO of all agency banks wherein it is clearly stated
“Please refer to our circular DGBA.GAD.No.H10450/45.03.001/2008-09 dated June 1 2009 on the above subject advising that whenever any excess payment of government pension is detected, the entire amount should be credited to the government account immediately.
2. It is hereby clarified that the above instructions contained therein presume an act of omission on the part of the agency bank. On the other hand if the agency bank is of the view that the excess wrong payment to the pensioner is due to errors committed by the government they may take up the matter with full particulars of the cases with respect to government department for a quick resolution of the matter. However this must be a time bound exercise and the government authorities acknowledgement to this effect must be kept on the banks record……..
3. In all other cases where the excess payment has risen on account of mistakes committed by the bank the amount paid in excess should be credited back to government account in lump sum immediately as advised in the circular referred to above.”
This Commission has also gone through the statement of account filed by the Complainant. It is clear that the money which has been taken out from the account of the Complainant was taken as per instructions to the bank given by The Ministry of Home Affairs and therefore no fault can be found with the act of the OP in deducting the amount from the account of the Complainant. However, this Commission is of the view that OP has been deficient in their services to the extent of taking the excessive amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the account of the Complainant which was not a part of the pension.
The OP is directed to credit the amount of Rs.30,000/- back in the account of the Complainant with interest @ 7% from the date of deduction till payment within 2 months from the receipt of this order failing which, the interest payable at the said amount would be 9%. The OP is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to the Complainant for the excessive withdrawal of Rs.30,000/-.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
