This Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of C.P Act, 1986 filed against the Assistant General Manager of Central Pension Processing Center Chief Manager Chairman or the State Bank of India and ombudsman of RBI. The fact of the case in brief is that after the demise of Justice Anup Dev his wife Bani Dev availed the widow pension Vide PPO No 63698/02/001/3 dated 21.05.2002 and the pension disbursing authority was the State Bank of India Siliguri Court More Branch from where the pension account of the said Bani Dev was lying. The said Bani Dev has expired on 11.02.2018 leaving the Complainants as heirs. During the life time of Bani Dev she received a call from SBI Siliguri Court More Branch in June 2017 whereby she was verbally informed that an amount of Rs. 96,196/- has been excess paid by the SBI between 01.11.2016 and 31.05.2017. Due to a system error and a monthly amount of Rs. 8,016/- from the pension account would be recovered and such arrangement was not held with documented communication or no consent was obtained from Bani Dev and at that point of time said Bani Dev was suffering from acute liver decease and she was taken to outside Siliguri for better treatment. And one of the Complainants as representing Bani Dev served a legal notice on 06.07.2017 to the pension disbursing authority that is O.P No. 1 for such deduction of Rs. 8,016 /- per-months from the pension account of Bani Dev but such letter of was not addressed by the pension disbursing authority. In this score the guidelines of RBI in respect of recovery of excess payment made to pensioners was not strictly followed. Which deduction of excess payment was started from June 2017. Thereafter, on 25.01.2018 the O.P No. 1 issued a letter to Bani Dev by which Bani Dev was aware that as advised by the Centralized pension proceeding cell a sum of Rs. 2,80,163/- was due for recovery has to be made from SBI account and also from the PPF account more than five years where partially withdrawal can be made. At that point of time Bani Dev was acutely suffering from various ailments and she was admitted at ICU at Amri, Salt Lake, Calcutta that it is the case of the Complainant that as per Pension Act of 1871 no pensioner’s account shall liable to cease attachment by process of any court in India and by this way the SBI has violated the law. On 05.02.2018 the Complainant that is son of Bani Dev Sri. Abhijit Dev issued a letter informing SBI as Bani Dev was hospitalized and for that reason requested, to remove the hold from the pension account of Bani Dev and in-pursuance of the said letter under the instruction of O.P No.1 the holding of the pension account of the Bani Dev was withdrawn. That Bani Dev passed away on 11.02.2018 at Amri, Salt Lake, Calcutta Hospital and after her demise the O.P No. 2 that is SBI, Siliguri Court More Branch on 14.02.2018 recovered a sum of Rs. 2,80,163/- by liquidating a joint fixed deposit of deceased Bani Dev which she had with Smt. Reshmi Dev the Complainant No. 1 and in that matter the consent of Reshmi Dev was not taken and in this way the SBI Authority illegally and forcefully playing coercive method deducted the said account from the said fixed deposit fund which manifest the deficiency of service on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 and in this score the Opposite Party Nos. 1&3 being mute spectator. The Complainant No. 2 Abhijit Dev vide email requested Bank Authority that the pension account of Late Bani Dev should be kept in a status-Quo till 20.02.2018 but the Opposite Party No. 1 illegally instructed the Opposite Party No. 2 to liquidate the said account of Rs. 2,80,163/- from the joint fixed deposit account which was standing in the name of Late Bani Dev with the Complainant No. 1 Reshmi Dev on 14.02.2018. And the remaining balance amount of the said account of Rs. 2,95,796/- was kept under suspension account without providing any interest or otherwise for a period of one year and more and unilaterally decide to deposit the said amount to a term deposit at a much lower rate causing severe loss of money of the said joint account holder Smt. Reshmi Dev. The further case is that due to such illegal deals and acts of bank at that point of time while Bani Dev was battling for life at Calcutta Hospital and due to paucity of fund for holding the pension account proper treatment could not be rendered for the recovery of Bani Dev for such illegal and immoral act of the Banking Authority. The General Manager of State Bank of India customer service department was informed vide letter dated 30.05.2018 by Complainant No. 1 Abhijit Dev protested such illegal act and the Banking ombudsman also was approached for proper redressal which was rejected by an advice to move before a competent authority for redressal of grievances. So, this case was registered against the Bank and prays for direction upon the O.Ps to reverse all the illegal, forceful amount that 12% interest over the principle amount also prayed for a direction upon the O.P to reverse the full amount of liquidation of the Fixed Deposit also prayed for a direction upon the O.Ps to make payment of Rs. 20 Lakh to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony etc. And also, compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- for causing of the death of the pensioner Bani Dev and hardship at the point of her critical illness and Rs. 1 Lakh for litigation cost.
The instant Consumer Complaint was registered and was admitted in due course and notice was sent to the Opposite Parties the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 &3 have jointly filed a W.V against the Consumer Complaint and denied all the material allegations, averments in the pleadings of the Complainants and contended that the pensioner during her life time by executing letter of undertaking and declaration has allowed the Opposite Parties to recover the excess money of public money has casted to an acquiesce to the Bank’s right of the rightful recovery of public money and the legal heirs of the pensioner’s account be permitted to enjoy in a unjust engagement of public money. The further case of the O.P is that the Banks recovery of excess pension as prescribed by RBI circulation and thereafter any allegation of violation of circulation by the Bank on this account was a baseless claim. The further case of the Opposite Parties is that the excess payment amount was deducted by the Opposite Parties by following each and every procedure. The further case is that recoveries affected from the fixed deposit by the bank after death of the pensioner in lumpsum were very much in order because they were affected only when monthly recovery could not be continued in further due to death of the family pensioner which was permissible in line with the RBI circulation on recovery. The further case is that the arbitrary claim of the Complainants was very much rightly rejected by the ombudsman as the Complainants does not have any means in their claim and the SBI authority has followed every norms and rules to recover the excess payment of pension amount and for that reason, the Consumer Complaint was liable to be dismissed in this case.
The other Complainants has authorized the Complainant No. 1 by executing the power of attorney to conduct the hearing of the case to conduct the case on behalf of other Complainants and Complainant No. 1 Reshmi Dev submitted the evidence-in-chief. On the side of Opposite Parties counter affidavit in chief was also submitted and the process of cross-examination was exhausted by applying the method of questionnaires and replies. The hearing of the case was conducted by the authorized legal practitioners. Argument of both sides was heard.
Points for determination:
- Are the Complainants Consumer Complaints as defined in the C.P Act, 1986?
- Have the Complainants any right of cause of action to submit the Consumer Complaint?
- Had there any deficiency of service on the part of O.P Nos. 1,2 &3?
- Are the Complainants entitled that reliefs sought for?
Decision with reasons
Point No. 1 &2
The pension payment order and other material documents clearly speaks that widow pensioner Smt. Bani Dev was drawing pension from her pension SB account lying at SBI Siliguri Court More Branch where she used to withdraw monthly pensions and during the life time of pensioner Bani Devi it was detected that excess payment of pension to the tune of Rs. 96,150/- for the period between 01.01.2016 and 31.05.2017 and it was decided that Rs. 8,016/- to be deducted from the same pension account per-month till the liquidation of the process. And the Complainants claim that at the point of time such recovery excess payment was made without taking consent of the pensioner and at that point of time she was battling for life at Calcutta Nursing Home and due to paucity fund and hold of the pension account the pensioner could not get proper medical aid and for that reason she breathed her last at Calcutta Hospital and entire blames rested upon the SBI Authority by the Complainant sides by taking the allegations of deficiency of service on the part of the Banking Authority. Certainly, there was a consumer relation between Bani Dev as the pensioner and the bank as disbursing authority also the Complainant No. 1 Reshmi Dev and the pensioner Bani dev had a joint fixed deposit account lying at SBI Siliguri Court More Branch from where unilaterally Rs. 2,80,163/- was deducted after the demise of Bani Dev without taking any consent of other joint holder Reshmi Dev. So, the relationship in the entire episode as service giver and service taker has established and for that reason, the instant dispute should come within the purview of C.P Act, 1986 under the head of deficiency of service on the part of the Banking Authority. So, the Consumer Complaint is well maintainable and the Complainants has right casus of action to register the instant Consumer Complaint.
Thus, point Nos. 1&2 here decided in favour of the Complainants.
(Point Nos. 3&4)
Now, in deciding these two points on merit, some thorough discussions are very much urgent in order to reach to conclusive decision. During the course of hearing Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Parties relied upon the Annexure-B that is undertaking of the pensioner. Where as usual the pensioner Bani Dev has undertaken to refund or made good to the bank any amount to which she was not entitled or any excess amount which may be credited to her account that the amount of money when demanded by the Bank from her as due and payable to the Bank in respect of thereof should be conclusive as to the amount shall be binding on her and also binding on her heirs executors and traders to indemnify the bank from and against any loss, cost charges, damages and expenses or incurred by the Bank. Thus, as per guidelines of the RBI and under taking, Bank has deducted the excess payment from the said pension account and the balance amount after her death from the share of the fixed deposit amount of the pensioner to the tune of Rs. 2,80,150/- was justified and correct and approved by the RBI guideline and Bank had not violated any rule in this score.
Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Parties during the course of argument mentioned that according to the complainants Justice Anup Dev was the employee and after her demise Bani Dev used to receive widow pension. The department concern where Justice Anup Dev was working is a necessary party to this case and not implead of such necessary party causes fatal to the case of the Complainant. This argument cuts no ice as because the game rolls during the life time of widow pensioner Bani Dev. And pension disbursing authority the State Bank of India, Pension Cell who were entrusted by the Government to disburse such pension and for that reason, the judicial department or the Accountant General was not the necessary party to this case. The Ld. Advocate further says that the Banks recovery was well within 1/3 limit permissible for recoveries by excess pension as prescribed by the RBI circular and in respect of this averments the Ld. Advocate of the O.P has cited a Judicial Decisions delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3500 of 2006. Where it was held that recovery of excess payment should be made in reasonable installments. And the said recovery should be made in equity monthly installments over a period of two years. Ld. Advocate mentions that during the life time bank deducted only Rs. 8.016/- from the said pension account. In monthly pension, it was not harsh and it was consented by the pensioner herself who was duly communicated by the Bank for such deduction of excess payment. The Ld. Advocate cited the decision of Chandi Prasad** Vs State of Uttarakhand & Others where Hon’ble Supreme Court held the recoveries are affected from the fixed deposit by the Bank after death of the pensioner in lamp sum are very much in order because they were affected only when monthly recovery could not be continued any further due to death of the family pensioner which was permissible in line with the RBI circular recovery. The last submission of the Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Parties has dealt with the public money and the action taken by the Opposite Parties are guided as per norms and guidelines of the Bank as well as RBI mandate and the Bank has an authority to protect the public money from its loss at the cost of public exchequer and Bank as public exchequer acted as a custodian of public money has done everything in this event which were permissible in law.
Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the arbitrary deduction of excess pension from the pension account of Bani Dev which further increased again up to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per-month without causing serving any notice or taking any consent from Bani Dev itself is a matter of concern and the Bank has violated the norms and certainly banks did not provide proper service to the pensioner as a bonafide customer of the Bank. Bank while decided the said deduction of pension and at that point of time Bani Dev was battling for life at Calcutta and due to non-operation of pension account the Complainants could not collect the fund for rendering all proper medical treatment of Bani Dev and for that reason, Bani Dev has lost her life due to ill treatment on the part of the Bank. He pointed out that as per provisions of Pension Act. The pensioners account shall not be liable to be cease or attachment or sequestration by process of any court in India and that such holding of the pension account of Smt. Bani Dev was illegal and clear violation of law by the Opposite Party Nos. 1&3. It is further pointed out on the part of the Ld. Advocate that Bani Dev passed away on 11.02.2018 at Calcutta and after her passing away on 14.02.2018 the Bank recovered a sum of Rs. 2,80,163/- by liquidating a joint fixed deposit of Late Smt. Bani Dev which she had with Complainant No. 1 Reshmi Dev. And in that score consent of Reshmi Dev was not taken and this illegal forceful coercive process taken by the Opposite Party No. 2 was utter illegal, arbitrary which manifest the deficiency of service on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2. It is further mentioned that at that point of time a total fund in the fixed deposit was accumulated was at Rs. 5,53,398/- from which 2,80,163/- was liquidated by the Bank for the outstanding excess pension payment which was illegally adjusted and deducted. And subsequently the remaining balance amount of Rs. 2,95,796/- was not converted to a terms deposit and said amount was illegally and deliberately kept under suspense account without providing any interest on the same account. And after one year the Bank has decided to convert the same account to a term deposit at much lower rate with the original term deposit rate of the full-term deposit amount these consequences the loss money of joint holder Smt. Reshmi Dev. It is pointed out that as per RBI circular dated 17.03.2016 the outstanding over payment of Rs. 96,199/- could be deducted by the Bank from savings pension account where a sum of Rs. 1,76,899/- was standing there. And RBI has permitted to liquidate the said money. Intentionally the Bank had chosen to go on deducting Rs. 8,016/- per-month and the said deduction was further increased to Rs. 12,000/- since November 2017 till the death of Bani Dev. Ld. Advocate of the Complainant in respect of his argument referred judicial decisions (2015)4 Supreme Court of India 334 where in the case of State of Punjab & Others. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held the recovery of excess payment in no way would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary. In another Judgement of Supreme Court reported in (2010) 14 Supreme Court of India 323 where it was held that no process should be taken to recover or adjust any recovery if excess paid out to the fault of the employers or the disbursing authority. In (2006) 11 Supreme Court case 709 it was also observed excess payment made by the Government to the pensioners recovery of the amount paid in excess may cost un due, hardship of the pensioner who were even in more distress position than in service employees and in that case discretionary relief can be granted by directing the Government not to recover the excess payment from the pensioners.
After, hearing both sides and after going through all the judicial decisions referred in this case and after consulting all the material documents it is established beyond any doubt that during the life time of pensioner Bani Dev the Bank the SBI as pension disbursing authority due to some system errors has made over payment to the pensioner and while it was detected, they intended to realize the excess amount by applying the method of monthly recovery Rs. 8,016/- from the pension account per-month after communicating it verbally to the pension holder which appears to be not illegal or beyond the permissible limit as per guidelines of RBI. Secondly, while the widow pensioner died the Bank has lost chance to recover the outstanding amount from the monthly pension amount due to death of the widow pensioner as the process of funding in the pension account was stopped and for that reason, the Bank has chosen the other option to recover his outstanding amount and for that reason, they have attached the share of the deceased Bani Dev in the fixed deposit amount and the remaining amount stood with the other joint holder Reshmi Dev which was kept in suspense account temporarily and it was transferred to a term deposit account on existing rate of interest. So, no harsh method have applied by the Bank in this excess payment recovery process and no fault are detected on the part of the Bank and no deficiency of service on the part of the Bank is established in this case and for that reason, the averments in the pleadings of the Complainant could not be established beyond the reasonable doubt and accordingly the Complainant could not sustain the case.
Hence, it’s ordered
That the instant Consumer Complaint Bearing No 27 of 2019 filed by the Reshmi Dev & Others stand dismissed on contest without any cost.
