Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/334/2017

N.S. Gujral - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syndicate Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

05 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/334/2017
Date of Institution	:	19/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	05/04/2018

 

N.S. Gujral s/o Late Shri Ishar Singh Gujral, aged about 80 years, Retd. as Director Selection Grade, Central Water Commission, New Delhi r/o H.No.3138, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Syndicate Bank, Central Pension Processing Centre, II Floor, Syndicate Bank, Head Office Manipal, TQ : Udupi, Udupi (Karnataka) Pin 576104 through its Branch Manager.

2.     Syndicate Bank, SCO 66-67, Sector 17B, Bank Square, Chandigarh (U.T), 160017 through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                         

                    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Randeep Singh, Counsel for OPs.

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Briefly stated, allegations are, complainant retired as a Central Government employee and is a super senior citizen i.e. over and above 80 years of age and is a chronic patient of diabetes mellitus, hypertension and associated diseases. The complainant holds bank account No.96502030001964 with OP-2 and used to receive pension in the same. The pension of the complainant was revised and the revised pension alongwith arrears due should have been paid to the complainant by the OPs soon after they received the letter dated 10.11.2014 from the Central Accounting Office, New Delhi.  However, the OPs delayed the matter for 15 long months to implement the orders and the paid the revised pension w.e.f. 1.3.2016 instead of 1.12.2014.  In nutshell, on this score, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.2,63,470/- as simple interest @ 12% per annum for delayed payment, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.         The OPs contested the consumer complaint and filed joint reply.  Maintained claim is time barred as it pertains to the year November 2014 while the present complaint was filed on 19.4.2017.  It is the case in the reply, there was delay, but, interest @ 8% per annum, per RBI instructions, has been paid to the complainant and credited in his bank account.  Some time was spent with regard to clarification, as such delay has occurred.   On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Rejoinder was filed and it is the case that interest on delayed payment @ 8% per annum was credited in the account of the complainant after filing of the present consumer complaint. 
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  Our conclusions are as under :-
6.         Per pleadings of the parties, the undisputed facts are amount under revised pension payment order became due from 1.12.2014 when the pension was revised.  It is also admitted fact that 15 months were taken by the OPs to disburse the arrears of revised pension w.e.f. 1.3.2016.  Certainly on this score the parties are not at variance; rather the OPs had given interest on account of delayed payment on the arrears @ 8% per annum which has been credited in the account of the complainant during the pendency of the present consumer complaint.
7.         Per pleadings and documents produced, definitely there has been deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Pension payment authority makes payment of amount to OPs for disbursement to complainant. There is no manner of dispute on this fact. The complainant being account holder deposits the amount and the OP being service provider had failed to perform their duty in the nick of time.  Since consideration is paid by pension payment authority to bank on behalf of the complainant, thus complainant falls within the definition of consumer. Rather the OPs should have been attentive with regard to the claim of a super senior citizen i.e. the complainant and is in the evening of his life and due to degeneration, is patient of multifarious diseases i.e. diabetes, hypertension etc. Interest @ 8% has been paid by the OPs and nowadays for the last 1½ years interest in the nationalized banks for the senior citizens is either near 8% or just over and above 8%. The case of the complainant ought to have been dealt with on top priority being a super senior citizen.  As such, we find no justification to enhance the same.  However, this is a fact that a super senior citizen in the autumn of his life has been put to harassment and inconvenience due to deficiency in service at the end of the service provider i.e. OPs. 
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To pay a compensation of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to him;
2. To pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/04/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President