Haryana

Sonipat

CC/144/2015

RAGHBIR SINGH S/O POORAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

RAM MEHAR SINGH

19 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.144 of 2015

                                Instituted on:30.04.2015

                                Date of order:19.11.2015

 

Raghbir Singh son of Pooran Singh, r/o H.No.1816/31, Shashtri Colony Byepass, Gohana road, Sonepat.

                                                      ...Complainant.

                        Versus

 

State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, having its Branch office at village Lehrara, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

                                                      ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Ram Mehar Singh Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Ajay Gahlawat Adv. For respondent.

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

       Complainant has filed the present complaint against

the respondent alleging therein that he is having his account with the respondent bank with PPO no.127202-S/HR/2005 as he was the employee of Haryana Govt. as JE in irrigation department.  The Hon’ble High Court passed an order in Dec/2013 for re-fixing the payment and to give arrears to the complainant because the appeal of the Haryana Govt. was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the year 2011-12. The State has paid the arrears to the complainant from March 2003 to 30.4.2005  and the arrears from May 2005 till today is outstanding towards the State Govt. Till today the enhanced/revised pension with arrears and LTC amount has not been paid to the complainant. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Thus, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that LTC amount of Rs.27836/- has already been credited in the complainant’s account on 28.5.2015 and the pension of the complainant has been revived from 9/2015 to the tune of Rs.13990/- and the arrear pending from 1.5.2005 to 8/2015 of rs.80994/-  and also arrear of LTC of Rs.1124/- has been uploaded to the system so that the same may be processed from the pension of the month of 9/2015.  In this way, the respondent is not responsible for any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent or  for any delay of any kind in the settlement of pension issued to the complainant and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that LTC amount of Rs.27836/- has already been credited in the complainant’s account on 28.5.2015 and the pension of the complainant has been revived from 9/2015 to the tune of Rs.13990/- and the arrear pending from 1.5.2005 to 8/2015 of Rs.80994/-  and also arrear of LTC of Rs.1124/- has been uploaded to the system so that the same may be processed from the pension of the month of 9/2015.  In this way, the respondent is not responsible for any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent or  for any delay of any kind in the settlement of pension issued to the complainant.

          But keeping in view the document C2, we find no force in the contentions raised by the respondent.  From the document C2, it is well established that the letter regarding the matter of the complainant was sent by the Treasury Officer Sonepat to the respondent bank vide letter no.3138 dated 21.1.2015 of Treasury Officer, Sonepat.  So, in our view, the respondent on the basis of the stand taken in the written statement cannot escape from their legal liabilities.  The respondent not only has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the senior citizen and the retired employee and has also compelled him to knock the doors of the Forum.  In our view, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and definitely, the respondent is liable to compensate the complainant. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.ten thousand) for rendering deficient services, for unnecessary harassment and mental agony.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 19.11.2015