IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 134-2010 DATED 07.06.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant N.Mahadeva, No.313,<br /> Kurubakeri Beedi, Kadakola, Myhsore Taluk, Mysore District.<br /> <br /> (By SriS.V.N., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Manager, Syndicate Bank, Chamunidpuram, Branch, Mysore-570004.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. B.T.S, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 16.04.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 10.05.2010<br /> Date of order : 07.06.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 27 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party bank alleging that, as per the revised pension payment order, opposite party is not paying the amount and illegally Rs.2,791/- per month has been withheld and hence, it is prayed to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.58,611/- for 21 months and so also, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.5,000/- cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the version, opposite party has given detail particulars of the earlier and the present P.P.O and it is stated that, there was excess payment and that is being recovered.<br /> <br /> 3. To substantiate the claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, Manger of the opposite party bank has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. For the complainant, written arguments are filed. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocate for the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, we have to consider, whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to any reliefs? <br /> <br /> 5. Our finding is in negative, for the following reasons<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. In substance, according to the complainant, pre-revised pension was Rs.4,741/- which increased to Rs.7,535/- as per revised P.P.O dated 06.07.2009. Without intimation to the complainant, opposite party deducted Rs.1,209/- from 01.09.2009 to 01.03.2010, which is illegal. Opposite party bank was paying a sum of Rs.8,066/- before revised pension, but now, only Rs.6,180/- after revision. It is unfair and illegal. Also, it is contended that, the complainant is entitled for enhanced pension of Rs.2,791/- per month from 01.07.2008 till date amounting to Rs.58,611/-. <br /> <br /> 7. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the version, details of the pension and dates are narrated. Same need not be re-produced. It is suffice to note that, in 4th paragraph of the version, opposite party has denied that, the complainant is entitled to the amount claimed. It is contended that, there was mistake, which has been rectified and as per the revised order, pension is being paid. It is further contended that, the calculation made by the complainant is concocted story. In 5th paragraph of the version, how the pension has been calculated and is being paid is narrated in detail. In 9th paragraph of the version, the excess amount paid to the complainant is mentioned. In 12th paragraph of the version, excess pension drawn by the complainant, is narrated.<br /> <br /> 8. The facts and the particulars narrated by the opposite party in the version and stated by the Manager of the opposite party bank are not denied or disputed by the complainant. The complainant has not explained and convinced, how the calculation made and the particulars furnished by the opposite party are incorrect. <br /> <br /> 9. Learned advocate for the opposite party submitted that, the complainant has given an undertaking empowering the opposite party bank to deduct the excess payment made if any. Thus, he argued that, since through oversight excess payment was made, that amount is being deducted on the basis of the undertaking given by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 10. Considering the facts and the material on record, in our opinion, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. However, we would like to make it clear that, the complainant is at liberty to approach the pension paying Authorities to get the matter rectified, if there is any mistake. Accordingly, we pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 7th June 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />