Date of Filing: 21/09/2011
Date of Order:22/11/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1747 OF 2011
Smt. R. Prema,
W/o. Late. G. Ranganath,
# 3, S.D.S.D.T And R.G.I.C.D,
Apartments, Hosur Road,
Bangalore.
(Rep. by In.person) …. Complainant.
V/s
Syndicate Bank,
100 ft Road, 1st Stage,
Indiranagar Branch,
Bangalore-560038.
Rep. by its Manager.
(Rep. by Sri.B.M.Baliga, Advocate) …. Opposite Party.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The complainant has made this complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to return the excess amount on the following allegations:-
“£À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀiÁzÀ ¢ªÀAUÀvÀ f.gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀgÀªÀgÀÄ ²gÁzÀ°è PÀë-QgÀt vÀAvÀædÕgÁV PÁAiÀÄ𠤪Àð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ EzÀÝQÌzÀÝAvÉ ºÀÈzÀAiÀiÁWÁvÀ¢AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30.01.1990gÀ°è ¤zsÀ£À ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ 7 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥ÀÆtð ¦AZÀt ºÁUÀÆ 7 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§ ¦AZÀtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ ¨ÁåAQ£ÀªÀgÀÄ 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ ¥ÀÆtð ¦AZÀt ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ºÉZÀÄѪÀjAiÀiÁV ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ªÀÄ»w EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀĪÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ AiÀiÁgÀÄ EgÀ°®è. EzÀÄ ¨ÁåAQ£ÀªÀgÀ ¤®ðPÀëvÀ£À¢AzÀ DVzÉ. 1999gÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÁåAPï C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄ CªÀgÀ PÉÆoÀrAiÀÄ°è PÀÆj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ EzÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß FUÀ¯Éà F PÀëtªÉà ¥ÁªÀw¹ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀAvÉ §ºÀ¼À CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ JzÀgÀ §UÉÎ K£ÀÆ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ D ¢£À £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA¨Á UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr PÀÆUÁrzÀgÀÄ. vÀPÀët £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ w½¹ CªÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr £À£ÀߣÀÄß C°èAzÀ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀ¼ÀÄ CzÉà ¢£À ¨ÁåAPï C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ °TvÀªÁV £À¤ßAzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ §gɹPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥Àæw ªÀiÁºÉ gÀÆ.600/- UÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¨ÁåAQUÉ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ £À£Àß ¦AZÀt ºÀtzÀ°è PÀmÁ¬Ä¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ §gɹPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀÆ.600/-gÀAvÉ £À£Àß ¦AZÀt ºÀtzÀ°è PÀmÁ¬Ä¹PÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. DzÀgÉ EzÀÄ 2000£Éà E¸À«¬ÄAzÀ 2011, d£ÀªÀjAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ ¦AZÀt ºÀtªÀÅ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀåvÁå¸ÀªÁV, EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¨ÁåAQUÉ ºÉÆÃUÉ «ZÁj¹zÀgÉ ªÀÄÄRå PÀbÉÃjUÉ §gÉ¢zÉÝÃªÉ FUÀ §¤ß, £Á¼É §¤ß C°èAzÀ E£ÀÆß K£ÀÆß GvÀÛgÀ«®è §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ w½¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ ºÉý £À£ÀߣÀÄß C¯ÉzÁr¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. PÉÆ£ÉUÉ £Á£Éà dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ jÃd£À¯ï ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï ºÁUÀÆ UÁA¢ü£ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀbÉÃjUÉ J®èªÀ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃQzÀÝ ºÀtzÀ §UÉÎ CªÀgÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¸À®ºÉUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£Àß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä w½¹zÀÝgÀÆ CªÀgÀAvÉ EA¢gÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ±ÁSÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£Àß zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ºÉýzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀĸÉåUÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¹UÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀA©PɬÄAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É EzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðªÁzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ AiÀiÁªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ ¥ÀæwQæAiÉÄAiÀÄÄ CªÀjAzÀ §A¢®è. AiÀiÁªÁUÀ ¨ÁåAQUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀbÉÃjUÉ £Á£Éà ¤ªÀÄä PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ MAzÀÄ £É¥À ºÉý PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ £À£ÀUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¨ÁåAQUÉ NqÁr ¸ÁPÁV ºÉÆÃV ¤ªÀÄUÉ §gÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝãÉ.
JgÀzÀ£ÉÃAiÀÄzÁV ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼À ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤¢üUÉAzÀÄ £À£Àß C£ÀĪÀwAiÉÄà E®èzÉ gÀÆ.500/-UÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA¢£ÀAvÉ (DUÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA¨Á PÀrªÉÄ ºÀt §gÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ) ºÀt ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¨ÁåAQUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ £À£Àß SÁvÉAiÀÄ°è ºÀt«gÀ°®è £Á£ÀÄ ¥Á¸ÀÄ ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÄãÉÃdgï §½ ºÉÆÃV PÉüÀ®Ä CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ¥Á¸ï ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÉzÀÄ £ÁªÉà £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§¼ÀzÀ°è gÀÆ.4,000/- PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀºÀ PÀÆqÀ¯ÉèÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÀzÀj¹ ¥Á¸ï ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀUÉ J¸É¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ £ÁtÄ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀbÉÃjUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ zÀÆj£À ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É £Á«gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è ¨ÁåAPï EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ EA¢gÁ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀªÁt ªÀÄÄSÉãÀ ¨ÁåAQUÉ §gÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw PÉýzÀgÀÆ §gÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ CzÀgÀAvÉ ¨ÁåAQUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ PÀqÀvÀ ¹PÀÌ®è £Á¼É §¤ß JA§ GvÀÛgÀ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ MAzÉÆAzÀÄ ¥ÉʸÉUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ MzÁÝqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É EªÀgÀÄ »ÃUÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÀvÁ¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ.
CªÉ£ÀÆå gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è£À ¹ArPÉÃmï ¨ÁåAQ£À°è ¹.E.N. DVgÀĪÀ gÁd£ï gÀªÀgÉà EzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹ ¤ÃªÀÅ C°èUÉ ºÉÆÃV JAzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ CªÉ£ÀÆå gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è£À ¨ÁåAQUÉ gÁd£ï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ CªÀjUÀÆ EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ«®è EzÀ£ÀÄß EA¢gÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ±ÁSÉAiÀĪÀgÉà ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÛ ºÉÆÃV £Á£ÀÄ EA¢gÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¨ÁåAQ£À°è «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ FUÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ«®è E£ÀÄß 15 ¢£À ©lÄÖ §¤ß J£ÀÄßwÛzÁÝgÉ £À£ÀUÉ K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ w½AiÀÄzÁVzÉ.
2. In brief the version of the opposite party are:-
The maintenance of the pension account bearing No.203/1627 is admitted and it is being credited to SB account of the complainant bearing No.13298 maintained by the opposite party is admitted. The pension paid by the State Government as the widow of her husband late. G.Ranganath who died on 30.01.1990, she has received full family pension for seven years up to 31.01.1997 thereafter lesser family pension as sanctioned by the State and remitted to the opposite party by the State Treasury has to be credited. The State Huzur Treasury discovered that they paid the complainant excess family pension even after 31.01.1997 and directed the opposite party to recover a sum of Rs.24,000/- out of the family pension payable to her in future in installments at Rs.500/- per month on 13.08.1999. It was brought to the notice of the complainant and started deduction of Rs.600/- per month from July-1999 up to May-2000 and thus recovered Rs.6,600/-. As per the undertaking given by the complainant on 17.10.2000 and requests made, the recovery was stopped from June-2000 and as per her request the recovery was made subsequently and paid it to the treasury. She had availed the first loan in 2000 agreed to repay in installments of Rs.356/- per month and it was cleared in October-2001. A second loan was taken by her agreeing to repay the same in installments of Rs.720/- per month which was recovered between 29.12.2002 and 13.10.2003. She availed a third loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.09.2003 payable in 60 installments at Rs.2,200/- per month and it was recovered on 24.11.2007. During this period opposite party could not recover the excess pension paid to the complainant. During the 3rd loan as the installment was heavy the opposite party has sanctioned another loan for the balance and gave easy installment for that of Rs.1,350/-. The opposite party has deducted only Rs.24,000/- towards the excess pension and nothing else. The opposite party had deducted only Rs.484/- on 22.12.2009 regarding the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund to meet the unprecedented monsoon floods struck in the Northern parts of Karnataka as per the direction of the State Government. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the complainant has stated that her complaint and documents be read as her evidence. The opposite party has filed their affidavit and documents. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service?
- What Order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) & (B): As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is a widow of one late G.Ranganath who was an employee of the Government who died on 30.01.1990. It is also an admitted fact that the Government has sanctioned certain pension to the complainant and she has to get full pension from 30.01.1990 for 7 years and later on she was entitled to family pension and pension was credited to her SB account which was received from the Government. It is also an undisputed fact that the treasury was sending the full pension and not family pension even after 7 years, this was noticed by the treasury authority who wrote to the opposite party on 13.08.1999 thus:-
“Smt.R.Prema holder of PPO No.14448/BNG/fp in her letter dated: 08.07.1999 stated that Rs.24,000/- had been paid to her as excess pension.
In her letter she has requested to recover the lumpsum Rs.24,000/- in installments i.e., to recover Rs.500/- every month.”
This the complainant also had admitted before the Treasury Authority that she has been paid in Rs.24,000/- excess and she agreed to be recovered at Rs.500/- per month in the future pension.
After the receipt of the letter the opposite party wanted to recover the money but the complainant on 17.10.2000 has written to the opposite party thus:-
“Pertaining to the above subject I am Smt.Prema.R. having an SB account 13298 drawing family pension at your bank had the excess amount for which you had said that you would deduct the balance.
But as I have to pay my daughters computer fees I would request your kind selves to please let me withdraw the amount for which the balance you may deduct from my future pension from November-2000 pension the excess amount can be deducted. Hope you do the needful.”
That means she wanted Rs.600/- per month shall be deducted from the future pension. It is seen that the opposite party has deducted at Rs.600/- per month in July-1999 to May-2000 and subsequently it has recovered in all only Rs.24,000/- as per the statement of accounts produced by the opposite party and not a pai more.
7. The opposite party has produced the statement of accounts of the complainant right from the beginning, it establish only Rs.24,909/- has been deducted as per the orders of the Government and paid it to the treasury. There is no excess recovery made. The complainant is unable to show how she has been subjected to excess recovery.
8. Further it is seen that the complainant had obtained loans from the opposite party to meet her meals and the opposite party knowing the fact of the complainant had granted several loans and recovered it in easy installments. That means the opposite party was cordial to the complainant towards her plight / sufferings since she was a widow.
9. It is also an admitted fact that regarding Chief Minister’s Relief Fund on 22.12.2009 the opposite party has recovered Rs.484/- from the pension of the complainant without issuing of any notice or taken consent from the complainant. The Government Order of 2009 clearly states that with the consent of the pensioners the amount can be deducted from their pensions and sent to the Government. But the opposite party without the consent from the complainant had deducted this Rs.484/- from the complainant’s account. This is nothing but a deficiency in service only to this extent.
10. The other allegation of the complainant is the demand of the opposite party to pay Rs.24,000/- in lump sum, and allegation to that extent is an untenable. The Government order clearly states only installments has to be recovered. The opposite party has recovered that installments giving large number of time to the complainant than ordered by the Government. Further the complainant never stated about her taking loan and paying it in installments.
11. Further the other allegation is that she was ill treated by the bank. Ill-treatment will not amounts to deficiency in service. If any personnel had ill treated the complainant, she can lodge a complaint against the very personnel with the higher authorities who will conduct enquiry and can take disciplinary action. Under these circumstances though there is deficiency in service as the amount is paid to the Chief Minister’s Fund, if we order the opposite party to bear the costs of this litigation quantified to Rs.2,000/- we think that will meet the ends of justice. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The opposite party is directed to send the amount as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 above to the complainant through DD by registered post acknowledgment due and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.
4. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 22nd Day of November 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
