The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 filed by one Manika Sarker widow of Late Asit Bhuson Sarker aged about 60 years by occupation house wife residing at South Birnagar which was registered as Consumer Case No. 12/18 in this Forum.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the husband of the complainant was an employee of Indian Air Force and by virtue of rendering service the husband of the complainant was attached with the defence of India and according to the Central Govt. rules the complainant is getting family pension vide PPO No.08/14/8/07108/1993. It has been further stated in the petition of complaint that Mr. Suman Kalyan Sarker who is the only son of the complainant is also an employee of State Bank of India recently posted at Karimpur Branch, Nadia as Assistant (account and cash), Dy. Manager. The complainant is an aged woman and suffering from various ailments. From the evidence as well as the complaint it is found that the complainant maintains an account with the S.B.I, Raiganj Branch for withdrawing money from her pension account vide S/B Account No.00000011314169619. It has been further stated that it is not possible for the complainant to withdraw the money from his pension account by visiting the bank personally for which she opened the said account with her son Mr. Suman Kalyan Sarker to receive the money from O.P.No.2. It has been further stated that though the said account is a joint account but in all purpose it is a pension account for withdrawing the amount credited to the account of the complainant as pension. It has been further stated that from 30.01.17 to 26.02.18 Rs.1,05,775.05 Paisa was credited to the pension account. All on a sudden the complainant went to the office of O.P.No.1 and upon verification of statement of account she came to know that said account has been on hold and an amount of Rs.1,05,775.05 Paisa was debited without any intimation or any authorization and without assigning any reason. It has been further stated that the complainant and her son has also a joint account lying with the O.P.No.1 from which an amount of Rs.4,41,901.28 Paisa was also illegally deducted on 27.02.18. It has been further stated that the complainant came to know that on the basis of false allegation made by Branch Manager, Karimpur Branch a police case vide Karimpur P.S. case No.43 of 2018 dt.15.03.18 u/s.420/409 of I.P.C. has been started against the son of the complainant. The complainant went to the office of O.P.No.1 to release the pension amount so that the complainant may withdraw money and maintain his livelihood including purchasing medicines for his ailments. But the bank authority stated to her that there was an allegation against her son and the O.P.No.2 deducted the amount of Rs.1,05,775.05 Paisa on 27.02.18 from her pension account and the State Bank of India will not release the said amount and also put on hold. Such act on the part of the bank is completely without any basis and which was done in contrary of law. The complainant has prayed for a direction upon O.P.Nos. 1 & 3 to release the amount of Rs.1,05,775.05 Paisa along with interest and also pray for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.  

The petition has been contested by State Bank of India i.e. O.P.No.1 by filing written version denying all the material allegation as leveled against SBI contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable either in law and facts. The claim of the complainant is false and fabricated and the complainant has no locus standi to file the case. The complainant is not a consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. This Forum has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case and the present petition is barred by law of limitation.

The definite defence case is that Mr. Suman Kalyan Sarker  son of the complainant is an employee of State Bank of India. He was posted at S.B.I., Raiganj Branch. Thereafter, he was transferred to SBI, Karimpur AD Branch. He misappropriated a huge amount by practicing fraud . On the basis of a verbal complainant from a customer, in course of internal investigation it was detected that the said Suman Kalyan Sarker fraudulently withdraw huge amount of Rs.45,35,294/- from several loan account. Savings account. The Bank was able to recover the amount of Rs.39,88,225=91 Paisa from different account which stood in the single name of Suman Kalyan Sarker or from the joint account with his mother. On the basis of a written complaint a Criminal case was instituted against Suman Kalyan Sarker. The further defence case is that only the spouse can be a joint holder in the pension account. The spouse of the complainant has already expired. According to the defence case in a pension account except crediting the pension amount and withdrawing the said amount no other transactions are allowed. As the disputed S.B.Account is a savings account as such the complainant and her son Suman Kalyan Sarker jointly used to operate the same and also accept pension amount. As it is a joint account in the name of the complainant and her son the bank authority rightly holds the said amount as because the son of the complainant misappropriates the money. Considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

During trial the complainant was herself examined as P.W.1 and no other witness was examined. On the other hand the O.P/bank did not adduce any evidence to their defence.  

Now the point for determination whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

                  D E C I S I O N  W I T H  R E A S O N S:

At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant submitted that the savings account was meant for crediting the pension amount. The complainant used to get pension after demise of her husband which is treated as family pension. The bank authority completely withheld the pension amount; as such the complainant filed the case before this Forum along with a petition for temporary injunction and also prayed for ad interim injunction on 23.03.18. This Forum allow the prayer for ad interim injunction and directed the bank authority to release the pension amount from the month of April, 2018. And the interim order was confirmed on 24.04.18. By that order the bank authority was directed to allow the complainant to withdraw the pension amount credited to the account in question. The complainant will not be permitted to withdraw any amount except the pension amount.

At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. argued that after passing of the order of injunction the bank authority release the pension amount and complied the order of this Forum.

Now the main question is to be considered whether the account in question is pension account or not?

On perusal of the pass book it is found that in the pass book the PPO Number has been mentioned though it is a savings account. On perusal of the pass book regarding particulars it is found that pension for the month has been mentioned. So definitely it is a pension account. There is no dispute it is a pension account.

The defence taken by the O.P. is that the pension account can be joint only in the case of spouse. It is not understood why the son of the complainant was included as an account holder in the said account. Completely it is the latches on the part of the bank why the son Mr. Suman Kalyan Sarker was included as a joint account holder. Why the bank authority did not raise any objection that the son cannot be a joint account holder in the case of pension account. Now, at this stage the bank cannot raise plea that it is not pension account as because her son cannot be treated as spouse. The term ‘spouse’ means husband and wife. As the complainant was a family pension holder so definitely it is understood her husband is not alive.  Inspite of that the bank authority makes a joint account with her son. At this stage the bank authority cannot evade his liability. This is one kind of latches and deficiency in service on the part of bank.

 From the cross examination of P.W.1 the complainant wants to impress upon the Forum that he filed an application before the bank for including the name of her son as nominee. But such fact carries no value as because in the pass book it is found that the complainant and her son are the joint account holder of the said account. So, the case which the complainant witness to establish that her son was included as nominee is not at all believable.

Now the main point is to be considered whether the bank authority can withheld any amount from the pension account.

It is well settled principle of law that the pension amount is meant for the livelihood of a pension holder. That cannot be withheld under any circumstances. It is not understood why the bank authority withheld the amount. The defence case is that as her son misappropriates the huge amount of money from the bank and as her son was an employee of SBI this is why treating pension account as joint account and the amount was withheld. But such defence as raised by the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. is not tenable as because on perusal of the pass book it is found that only pension amount has been credited. No amount has been deposited. So, definitely it is a pension amount and under any circumstances pension amount cannot be withheld by the bank authority. Such withholding of the amount is completely illegal and without any basis. It is to be mentioned that against the order of injunction the O.P/Bank moved the State Commission and National Commission. Though the O.P. has the legal right to move before the higher Forum but in the opinion of Forum why pension holder like the complainant who is aged 60 years woman had to move from the door of State Commission and National Commission. Definitely the complainant had to suffer. As it is found that the bank authority has completely without any legal basis and without any reasonable ground withheld the amount. Moreover, for the fault of her son a mother like widow pension holder cannot be suffered and joint account was opened by the bank in violation of the bank norms.  On perusal of the pass book initially it is found that it was a single account. Later it was became joint account. So considering such facts it is found that the complainant is a consumer under the definition of consumer protection Act and is entitled to get relief as per provision of Consumer Protection Act.

It is not understood under whose direction the Branch Manager withheld the account. As such an enquiry is required to be made by the bank authority under whose direction the branch manager withheld the account. As such the Chairman, State Bank of India is requested to make an enquiry under whose direction or instruction the Branch Manager, Raiganj Branch withheld the pension amount. As it is found that there was a latches and deficiency in service for which the complainant had to suffer mental pain and agony and had to move to the door of State Commission and National Commission, as such she is entitled to get compensation for mental pain and agony. This observation will be treated as order.

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence, it is,

                                O R D E R E D:

 That the complainant case being No. CC-12/18 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P No.1 and ex parte against the rest O.Ps with cost.

The complainant gets an order for realizing the amount of Rs.1,05,775.05 Paisa along with interest at the prevailing banking rate from time to time.

The O.P.No.1 is directed to release the amount along with interest within forty five days from the date of this order.

Beside that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/-for mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. Initially the State Bank of India will make the payment. Thereafter the bank authority will realize the amount from the officer after enquiry under whose direction the pension amount was withheld by the Branch Manager, S.B.I., Raiganj Branch.

The O.P.No.1 is directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- + 10,000/- = Rs.1,10,000/- within 45 days from the date of order failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of this case. If that amount of Rs.1,05,775.05 Paisa is not released within 45 days it will carry further interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of this case. This penal interest will be in addition to the normal interest of the amount of Rs.1,05,775.05 Paisa .

The O.P.Nos. 2 and 3 are also jointly and severally liable.

In case of default for payment within stipulated period as stated above the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per provision of law.

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chairman, State Bank of India with a request to make an enquiry by an authorize officer of the State Bank of India and send a report to the Forum within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Let a copy of this order be also supplied to the parties free of cost on proper application.