Presented by Sri P.N.Dash, President .
The Complainant filed a complaint case against the Opposite Parties on Dt.09/03/2010 alleging that being as a retired school teacher solely basing his livelihood on the pension amount he was debarred to avail the increasing pension amount basing on 5th pay Commissions revised scale for pension since 1996 by the act of Opposite Parties by not paying him his dues due to a malafide intention lead to a latches on their part which leads to negligence and suffering on the part of the Complainant, hence he claimed Rs.13,760/-(Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred sixty)only as he (Complainant) sustained a financial loss for approximately T.I. and interest along with Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards compensation for mental agony and harassment with appropriate litigation cost.
The Case of the Complainant is that he is a retired high school teacher and a pensioner having his Saving Bank Account at Opposite Party No.1(one) branch for that purpose. Prior to it he received the said pension from the sub-treasury of Padampur prior prior to November-2001. The revised pension scale was implemented w.e.f Dt.01/11/1996 and for payment of gratuity which was intimated to the District Treasury Officer, Bargarh, to the Complainant and Inspector of Schools, Sambalpur by the Controller of Accounts, Orissa, Bhubaneswar and after receiving the letter from the Treasury Officer, Bargarh he communicated the same to the State Bank of India, Bargarh Branch and further the State Bank of India, Bargarh Branch communicated the same to the present Opposite Party No1(one) and the same was duly received by the Opposite Party No.1(one) vide letter No. 49/493 Dt.15/05/2009. The Complainant has deposited the relevant documents of his revised pension amount with timely increment, gratuity and arrear amount without unreasonable delay. The Complainant met the Opposite Party No.1(one) several times to take necessary steps for payment of his arrear amount, gratuity and revised pension which was unduly delayed with different pretext made by the Opposite Party No.1(one). Later on Dt.20/01/2010 the Complainant sent a regd. pleader notice to the Opposite Party No.1(one) through his advocate and the same was received by the Opposite Party No.1(one) as per the letter No.40/229 Dt.04/02/2010 sent by the Controller of Accounts, Orissa, Bhubaneswar with a contention that, the Complainant has already received his arrear amount. In fact it is not true that the Complainant has received the revised pension of Rs. 2,030/-(Rupees two thousand thirty)only with T.I. nor the arrear amount and gratuity what he is entitled to get from the Opposite Party No.1(one) as per the letter No. Pen IV- 3-394/08 of the Controller of Accounts, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, even though more than 10(ten) months has already been elapsed till to the date of filing the case is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1(one) as according to the Complainant. According to the Complainant Opposite Party No.2(two) is a special branch which deals the matter of pensioners payment through Saving Bank Accounts, a specialized wing engaged for special purpose of pensioners only, hence in ordinate delay on his part also surely a deficiency in service on his part, hence jointly and severally liable with the Opposite Party No.1(one) as alleged by the Complainant.
The Complainant specially prayed to the Forum besides the relief of compensation he claimed, that the Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to release the revised pension with T.I. arrear pension with T.I. w.e.f. Dt.01/11/1996. Gratuity and interest there of as per letter No. Pen-IV-3-394/08 of the Controller of Accounts. The Complainant has filed xerox copies of relevant documents which are verified and found to be true.
The case of the Opposite Parties is that neither the Opposite Party No.1(one) nor the Opposite Party No.2(two) are liable on the ground of deficiency in service on their part. When the Opposite Party No.1(one) received the message of revised pension of the Complainant promptly he acted upon that by sending necessary information for a speedy disposal of the matter. Opposite Party No.2(two) which is a specialized branch deals on the payment of pension, revised pension, family pension gratuity etc. of the entire state of Orissa burdened with heavy work load and to comply it with efficiency delay up to ten months on its part is not an ordinate delay as per the Banking Law permits. Hence Opposite Party No.2(two) also not liable for any latches on his part. The Opposite Party No.1(one) only do the follow up work of pension holders whose relevant documents has been sent from the Opposite Party/Branch of C.P.P.C.. The C.P.P.C. (Opposite Party No.2(two) )in turn remit and credit the same in the account of pension holders. Opposite Party No.1(one) has no role in crediting the pension, revised pension gratuity or other benefits in the account of such account holder as the Complainant. The amount are credited to the account of pension holder like the Complainant by the C.P.P.C. (Opposite Party No.2(two)) under core banking system. The Opposite Party No.1(one) act as middle man to put the grievance and make correspondence in that regard with C.P.P.C. (Opposite Party No.2(two)). The Opposite Party No.1(one) adhering its duty by sending the letter and documents to Opposite Party No.2(two) (C.P.P.C., Bhubaneswar) in time for payment of revised pension etc. as claimed by the Complainant. Hence both Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) are not liable for any deficiency in their part towards the Complainant. Opposite Parties prayed to the Forum to dismiss the case with heavy cost should be imposed on the Complainant. In their support both Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) filed xerox copies of relevant documents which are verified and found to be true.
Heard the counsels, perused the record and the Forum comes to such findings that:-
(1) That, the Complainant has Saving Bank Account bearing No. 11530039806 which proved that the Complainant is the customer of the Opposite Party No.1(one), hence a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act-1986 and entitled to file the case against the Opposite Parties.
(2) The case is within the jurisdiction of territory and within the limitation of time, hence admitted.
(3) Whether deficiency in service occurred by both Opposite Party No.1(one) or Opposite Party No.2(two) jointly and severally ?. That both are jointly and severally responsible to discharge their onus as because Opposite Party No.2(two) (C.P.P.C, Bhubaneswar) is a specialized branch of Opposite Party No.1(one) under the umbrella of the State Bank of India, Opposite Party No.2(two) is a necessary party and in absence of him no just and proper decision on the case can be pronounced. Hence both are jointly liable for any deficiency in their part.
(4) Both side admitted the latches on the part of the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1(one) also replied to the pleader notice sent by the Complainant on Dt.20/01/2010 vide letter No. 40/229 issued by Opposite Party No.1(one) to the counsel of the Complainant. In that particular letter the Opposite Party No.1(one) advised the Complainant through his counsel to implead Opposite Party No.2(two) as a party on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. It revealed that the matter is within the knowledge of Opposite Party No.1(one) since then. In para 2(two) of the said letter the Opposite Party No.1(one) gave a detailed amount of dispute, in a nut shell in accordance to his enquiry and referring the matter to Opposite Party No.2(two) for an expert verification revealed that some ambiguity is there and Opposite Party No.1(one) is not bold on that point.
After receiving the letter from the Opposite Party No.1(one), the Complainant calculated the interest as to Rs.220/-(Rupees two hundred twenty)only per month as informed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in that letter which revealed that the Complainant challenged the Opposite Party No.1(one) on the basis of his information supplied by him to the Complainant. So the matter is admitted that the Complainant has neither claimed any relief from basing on an extraneous information.
(5) In the version of Opposite Party No.1(one) he admitted in para 2(two) and 3(three) about the pension matter, but in para 4(four) denied his latches/deficiency in service. In para 8(eight) of his version the Opposite Party No.1(one) admitted that the matter is a matter of Opposite Party No.2(two). He tried to free himself from the clutches of onus by citing letter No.40/63 Dt.05/09/2009, but the same letter revealed the fact that onus lies on to Opposite Party No.1(one) also. The version of Opposite Parties revealed that due to request of the Complainant several times, Opposite Party No.1(one) communicated the matter to the office and Opposite Party No.2(two) which proved that the Complainant was harassed a lot by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and as also by Opposite Party No.2(two). Opposite Party No.1(one) admitted that he is a middleman to the matter but failed to release himself from the onus by not produced any evidence to that effect.
(6) Opposite Party No.2(two) admitted his duty for pensioner's timely pension, timely increment and timely gratuity in accordance with a furnishing computerized office which presumed to give the dues in timely inspite of heavy workloads. The report of Gratuity payment oder Dt.19/04/2009 issued from the Office of Controller of Accounts, Orissa revealed that on Dt.28/04/2009 the gratuity was sanctioned and proper order was passed, so also it revealed that payment was received by the Complainant on Dt.03/05/2010. Arrear amount stand upto Rs. 58,091/-(Rupees fifty eight thousand ninety one)only prior to the filing of the case by the Complainant.
(7) That everything regarding the revised pension, gratuity accepted and admitted by both the Parties. But dispute lies on the latches mentioned in para 4(four), 5(five) and 6(six) of the Complaint petition which are not admitted by the Opposite Parties. Whether there was inadequate delayed regarding payment of revised pension by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and whether Opposite Party No.2(two) is responsible for the delay is the crux of the case. Documents filed by the Complainant as ext-1 letter bearing No. Part-IV-3-394/08 of the Controller of Accounts, Orissa, Bhubaneswar relating to payment of pension and gratuity revealed that the revised pension was come into force since Dt.01/11/1996 vide letter No. 9508 issued by the Asst. Controller of Accounts, Bhubaneswar. But the same was not paid, hence the pleader notice was served by the Complainant on Dt.20/01/2010 and the same was responded by the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.04/02/2010 where in the letter No. 40/229 Dt.04/02/2010 to the counsel of the Complainant admitted in para 1(one) that the matter was refered to the Opposite Party No.2(two) by Opposite Party No.1(one) for a processing and the Opposite Party No.1(one) obliged to say that immediate payment of Arrear pension as per his due will be remitted to him. Moreover in para 2(two) of the letter he (Opposite Party No.1(one) clarified about the dues and stated that three pension dues were sent to the Complainant. The letter revealed that till then some arrear dues stand in the name of the Complainant which he is entitled to get.
(8) Letter No. 40/201 Dt.21/01/2010 issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Complainant and filed the same by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and letter No. Br 40/220 Dt.01/02/2010 issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, C.P.P.C., Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2(two)) revealed that arrear payment of pension of pre-2006 was not yet paid till to the Dt.01/02/2010. The statement Account Dt.23/04/2010 of the Complainant filed by the Opposite Parties revealed that on Dt.30/07/2008, Dt.29/09/2008, Dt.27/10/2008, Dt.29/08/2009, Dt.03/09/2009, Dt.31/10/2009, Dt.27/11/2009 and on Dt.01/04/2010 transactions were made and the amount were credited to the name of the Complainant. It proved that till Dt.30/07/2008 to Dt.01/04/2010 and prior to the earliest date i.e. Dt.08/02/2008 the revised pension amounts were not released and the Complainant failed to get it. The Transaction Enquiry Computerized Report of the Complainant filed by the Opposite Parties also revealed the same thing, till to the Dt.07/05/2010 outstanding dues payable to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties are not perfuncted and the Complainant was debarred from getting it, which proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties did not release the amount (revised pension dues) in proper time due to the latches of the Opposite Parties jointly and severally. All other documents filed by the Opposite Parties which revealed that 40%(forty percent) on Dt.10/08/2009, 30%(thirty percent) on Dt.14/12/2009 and 30% (thirty percent) on Dt.13/07/2010 of the total outstanding payable dues payable to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties in accordance with 6th pay Revn. Arrear (1st stage) and 2nd stage along with 5th Pay Rev. arrear filed by the Opposite Parties are not disputed, hence need no probe. Arrears calculated for the period from Dt.01/01/2006 to Dt.31/08/2008 filed by the Opposite Parties and statement of Accounts filed by the Opposite Parties on Dt.20/07/2011 is also not disputed, hence need no probe.
(9) According to the version of Opposite Party No.2(two) at para 4(four) he stated that:- Rs. 3,974/-(Rupees three thousand nine hundred seventy four)only referred as part At Rs.8,298/-(Rupees eight thousand two hundred ninety eight)only of part B- total Rs.12,272/-(Rupees twelve thousand two hundred seventy two)only was paid and differential amount is Rs.13,184/-(Rupees thirteen thousand one hundred eighty four)only from Dt.01/11/1996 to Dt.31/12/1996 which was paid in two installments of 30%(thirty percent) each of toal amount instate of three installment of 40%(forty percent) of toal amount in another installment revealed that arrear stand still till to the last date of 31/12/1996. Out of Rs.14,999/-(Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred ninety nine)only was released according to government rule. The released of 40%(forty percent), in first instance, again 30%(thirty percent) on second instance and finally 30%(thirty percent) on third instance was released of the total arrear amount. But the record revealed that 40%(forty percent) in first instance was not released if we calculated the account to the same, 60%(sixty percent) of the total amount was released. Correction of bill by the Opposite Party No.2(two) in this regard is a wrong procedure. Opposite Party No.1(one) sent a letter to the Complainant Ref No. 40/201/Dt.21/01/2010 also revealed nothing about interest. Statement of account submitted by Opposite Party No.1(one) revealed that 3.50% per annum was the interest rate but the heavy debit by the Opposite Party No.1(one) revealed another thing that less then the prefixed rate of interest is imposed. Excess debit of the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant is a sure case of deficiency in service in their part. Complainant challenged in his argument that Opposite Parties in his version at para 5(five) stated that in the instant case the Govt. directed to pay the arrear on three installment of 40%(forty percent), 30%(thirty percent) and 30%(thirty percent) and the same was carried out by the Opposite Parties. Complainant in his reply stated that. Opposite Parties should produce the government circular order that disbursement of pension amount should performing according to piece meals of 40%, 30% and 30% of the total amount, which the Opposite Parties failed to convinced to the Forum.
(10) That the main disputes lies that (i) the Opposite Party No.1(one) took prompt action for execute the process of revised pension scheme granted since Dt.01/11/1996 and (ii) the Opposite Party No.2(two) as deal on pension accounting of the whole state of Orissa over- burdened with work loads and for that cause inordinate delay on his part is not a sufficient ground for deficiency in service, which is admitted by the Opposite Parties is tenable in the eye of law or not ? By perusing the records and analyzing the evidences on trial the Forum comes to a finding that Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) both have nexus to deal the matter and both are necessary Parties having joint liabilities and they have not perfuncted their duties in time properly. Opposite party No.1(one) conved the matter to Opposite Party No.2(two) after receiving the pleader notice and since then not active to dispose the matter with amicable under-standing with the Complainant rather contested the case till to the end which shows a malafide intention on their part C.P.P.C., Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2(two) is formulated to deal the pension accounting of the whole state for a speedy disposal purposes and delay in his part by citing the ground of work load is not permissible under the law. Opposite Party No.2(two) has to enhance his efficiency and accountability to gain the trustworthiness of the old pensioners of the state who solely depends on that for their livelihood in a present world of self-cent redness and negligent attitudes and problems of the society relating to old age and desertation. So the latches on the part of the Opposite Party No.2(two) is not pardonable.
Finally, the Forum comes to a conclusion that deficiency in their services are apparent on the activities of both Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) and for that both jointly and severally penalized to pay a damage compensation of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only to the Complainant along with Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only for a litigation cost besides release all arrear revised pension amount of the Complainant, which included revised pension, gratuity along with interest thereon, within one month from the date of Order, otherwise 9%(nine percent) interest per annum on the total awarded amount is to be imposed on the Opposite Parties form the date of Order to till to the date of actual realization by the Complainant.
The case is disposed of accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Pramath Nath Dash)
P r e s i d e n t.
I do not agree-:
Brief facts- The Complainant is a pensioner and alleges that he had not received the revised pension and accruing arrears to the same revision within reasonable time period for which he had lost about Rs. 13760/- (Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred sixty)only financial loss on T1 and interest and claimed Rs 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only for mental agony with the financial loss.
Heard the submission of the counsels of both the parties perused the record and documents filed by the parties.
Finding:-
(1) The revision order filed shows ti the of Dt.28/04/2009 vide No. Pen-3-394/08 got by the Complainant, but it is not revealed from the documents when the same was received by the concerned Opposite Parties, neither the Complainant established when he filed the document with the Opposite Party Bank. But it was seen that several communications have been made by the Opposite Party No.1 Bank to Opposite Party No.2, chief Manager, CPPC, which handles the pension related matter specifically, vide their letter No.40/17 Dt.04/06/2009, 40/63 Dt.05/09/2009, 40/201 Dt.21/01/2010, and 40/220 Dt.01/02/2010, requesting early action as the issue.
(2) Documents filed with the record which was not disputed also shows that the Complainant was getting the pension deposited each month continuously amount being Rs. 3,937/-(Rupees three thousand nine hundred thirty seven)only till March 2008, Rs. 5,962/-(Rupees five thousand nine hundred sixty two)only till May 2008, Rs. 4,112/-(Rupees four thousand one hundred twelve)only in June 2008, Rs.4,287/-(Rupees four thousand two hundred eighty seven)only + 6 payments each of Rs. 175/-(Rupees one hundred seventy five)only in July 2008 which continuous till July 2009, Rs.5,361/-(Rupees five thousand three hundred sixty one)only till December 2009, in January 2010 got 5 payments of Rs. 220/-(Rupees two hundred twenty)only each and pension Rs.5,581/-(Rupees five thousand five hundred eighty one)only deposited Dt.29/01/2010 which again in erased to Rs. 5,827/-(Rupees five thousand eight hundred twenty seven)only and continuous.
(3) The document available with the records also shows that lump sum amounts have been deposited to the account of the Complainant on Dt.10/08/2009 Rs. 14,999/-(Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred ninety nine)only under pension head, again on Dt.14/12/2009 Rs.9,638/-(Rupees nine thousand six hundred thirty eight)only, and again on Dt.09/03/2010 amounting to Rs. 12,263/-(Rupees twelve thousand two hundred sixty three)only. Thus as per the government provision of payment of arrears there payments are made in installments starting from Dt.10/08/2009 No document was filed either by the Opposite Party on the Complainant to show if there is some direction regarding the time limit within which these payments has to the made.
The differential arrear amount is calculated to the Rs. 13,184/-(Rupees thirteen thousand one hundred eighty four)only which was paid on Dt.09/03/2010 Rs. 3,974/-(Rupees three thousand nine hundred seventy four)only and Rs. 9,210/-(Rupees nine thousand two hundred ten)only paid on Dt.07/05/2010, revealed from the document filed by Opposite Party No.2(two). A total of Rs. 58,091/-(Rupees fifty eight thousand ninety one)only has been paid to the Complainant regarding the revision of pension.
(4) The Complainant alleges that he suffered a lot due to delay of payment of arrears are not established well and not supported with any evidence, further the Complainant was able to receive his pension each month. It is also seen that there were transaction of amounts an the account like Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only withdrawal from the account, and another Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only during the period so there is no problem of subsistence arise.
(5) The arrear dues as well as the differential amount were paid by the Opposite Party Bank as per government provision. The only allegation now is the delay of 4(four) months to pay the 1st installment of arrears. If we analyze the documents, it shows that the order comes on Dt.28/04/2009 and after it is received by the Opposite Party Bank next month the Complainant should have got the 1st installment. So left 3 months delay is occurred for the payment of 1st installment amounting Rs. 14,999/-(Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred ninety nine)only, which is not long and when there were continuous effort were there by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to sort the matter. Besides when we deal with Banks generally we expect certain standard and correctness in each and every calculation done so the time taken by the Opposite Party No.1(one) can not be said to be unreasonable and justified.
(6) The allegation that the Complainant could have earned interest on the arrear amount is also not admissible for two reasons (1) there is no guarantee that the Complainant was going to invest the same as deposits and (2) only with the 1st installment amount which was assured to be delayed on, even if with the total arrear amount paid amounting Rs. 58,091/-(Rupees fifty eight thousand ninety one)only, the Complainant could not have earned the alleged lass amount of Rs. 13,760/-(Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred sixty)only, it is also not clearly understood how the Complainant calculated such interest and on which amount.
(7) Even after the payment of arrears have been started since Dt.10/08/2009 and even the revised pension amounts paid in between the Complainant rushed and preferred to file a consumer Complainant is taken as litigating for the sake of litigation which strongly to be discouraged.
Therefore after under going careful consideration to the documents filed with case record which do not need probe as not challenged, submission of the counsels and under the facts and circumstances discussed above the Complainant has got no merits and deemed to be dismissed. No cost to any party.
Disposed accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Mrs Anjali Behera)
Member.
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 23 of 2010.
Somanath Panigrahi, S/o Late Satyananda Panigrahi, aged about 72(seventy two) years, Occupation- Retd. Teacher, resident of Village/Po. Jamla, Ps/Tah. Padampur. Dist. Bargarh. ... ... ... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
1) State Bank of India, Padampur Branch, Represented through its Branch Manager, At/Po/Ps. Padampur, Dist. Bargarh.
2) The Chief Manager, C.P.P.C., State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar, At/Po. Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurdha. ... ... ... Opposite Parties.
OPINION U/S 14(2-A) OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT – 1986
Presented by Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, Member on Dt. 19/06/2014
The record put up before me as per letter No. 230 Dt.26/06/2013 of the Hon'ble President, D.C.D.R.F., Bargarh for hearing and my opinion on the point/points of difference between the President and Member(w) vide Order Dt.17/02/2012.
The brief case of the Complaint is that, the Complainant being a retired High School Teacher was drawing his pension from Sub-Treasury, Padampur until November-2001 and then from State Bank of India, Padampur Branch there after. The Complainant's pension was revised to Rs. 2,030/-(Rupees two thousand thirty)only with timely increment and gratuity by the controllers of Accounts, Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide his letter No. IV-3-394/08 sent to District Treasury, Bargarh. Inspector of Schools, Sambalpur and personal copy to the Complainant. The Order was communicated to the State Bank of India, Padampur branch and the Complainant also submitted all the necessary documents before the Opposite Party No.1(one) to avail his revised pension, gratuity and arrear as he was illegible as per the order of the Controller's Accounts, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. In spite of diligent efforts the Complainant failed to obtain his pension dues from Opposite Party No.1(one) long for ten month which was purely a service deficiency by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant and lastly served a pleader notice upon the Opposite Party No.1(one) for payment of his arrear pension and all other dues he was entitled for. In reply to the pleader Notice the Opposite Party No.1(one) has asserted they the Complainant has already received his arrear amount. Consequent upon the above fact the Complainant claims a financial loss of Rs.13,760/-(Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred sixty)only with T.I. and Interest besides loss for mental agony and harassment.
Heard the submission of counsel for the Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties, gone through the Judgment of President and Member(w), perused the documents available on record and found the following points of difference between the President and Member(w).
Whether there is any irregularity in paying the entire amount of pension arrear in respect of 5th pay revision, 6th pay revision and 6th pay revised revision have been transferred into the account of the Complainant at State Bank of India Padampur Branch.
Is there any inordinate delay in paying the pension arrears to the Pensioner/Complainant for which any service deficiency have been caused by the Opposite Parties.
Delving deep into the payment particulars and account statement bearing No. 11530039806 of State Bank of India, Padampur stand in the name of the Complainant it is well established that as per 5th and 6th pay revision arrear and differential amount as per revised by Controller of Account Bhubaneswar an estimate total of Rs.58,091/-(Rupees fifty eight thousand ninety one)only have been paid in fractions (i.e. 40%, 30% and 30%) into the account of the Complainant at State Bank of India, Padampur in different dates. Monthly pension payment as per the revised basis pay have also been credited into the account of the Complainant regularly and also small differential amounts have also been credited when accrued into the account of the Complainant. More over the Opposite Party No.2(two) has clearly substantiated the account of the Complainant with much accuracy and with statistical data and account statement of State Bank of India, Padampur. In comparison the Complainant has filed no such documents to establish his claim against the Opposite Parties.
So I find it no irregularity in paying the entire amount of pension arrear to the Complainant in respect of 5th and 6th pay commission and revision by Controller of Account, Bhubaneswar by the Opposite Parties.
Neither the Complainant nor the Opposite Parties have filed any documents showing the exact date of receiving the letter No. 49/493, Dt.15/05/2009 by State Bank of India, Padampur Branch sent to him by State Bank of India, Bargarh Branch, where in the Order Dt.28/04/2009 of the Controller of Accounts, Bhubaneswar has been communicated. But it is well established from the entry made in the account statement of the Complainant at State Bank of India, Padampur that disbursement of pension arrear have been started from Dt.10/08/2009 and in regular interval paid in to the account of the Complainant in fraction of 40% and 30% each. The Opposite Party No.2(two) claims that arrear are credited in fractious as per the Government Circular and Orders but not such Govt. Circular and Orders has been filed by the Opposite Parties or by the Complainant. From the contention of the Complaint and documents available on record, it is comprehensively concluded that less then three months time has been taken by Opposite Party No.2(two) in processing the pension and crediting the first installment of the pension arrear into the account of the Complainant.
Owing to the responsibility and work load entrusted on Opposite Party No.2(two) for processing the pension papers of all the pensions of the state and to execute the processing of accounts of such a huge numbers of pensioners with much accuracy, less then three month time in processing and crediting the pension arrear of first installment to the accounts of the Complainant is not an inordinate delay by the present Opposite Parties.
So no such service deficiency has been caused by either Opposite Party No.1(one) or Opposite Party No.2(two) to the Complainant.
In the facts and circumstance stated above. I am of the opinion that the Member (w) is justified in dismissing the complaint against the Opposite Parties and I do agree with her.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
Member.
