Complaint filed on: 13-04-2017 Disposed on: 14-12-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.45/2017
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
Nagendrappa,
Aged 76 years,
Retired Fisheries Assistant Director,
Residing at Jodidar Compound,
Opp. to Masjid, KR Extension,
Devarayanadurga Road, Sira gate,
Tumakuru
(By Advocate Sri.G.S.Sundara Rao)
V/s
Opposite parties:-
1. The Assistant General Manager,
The then State Bank of Mysore,
Centralized Processing Centre,
Manjusha Building, 2nd story,
Bijayi, Mangalore
2. The Manager,
State Bank of Mysore,
(Now merged with State Bank of India), Sira gate, Tumakuru
3. The District Treasury officer, Tumakuru
(OP No.1 & 2 by Advocate Sri.Vazeer Ahamed)
(OP No.3-Inperson)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP No.1 to 3, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the 2nd OP to redeposit Rs.80,360=00 wrongly recovered from the complainant and the OP No.1 to 3 jointly pay normal interest of 12% along with Rs.10,000=00 for having caused un-necessary mental strain and Rs.15,000=00 towards legal expenses, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
The complainant was working as Asst. Director of Fisheries and retired on superannuation on 30-9-2001 and pension was sanctioned w.e.f.01-10-2001 bearing PPO No.205756 and his commutation value and DCRG was not sanctioned. On 30-7-2013, the Accountant General of Karnataka released commuted value of pension of Rs.2,05,853=00 and the same was encashed on 29-8-2003.
The complainant further submitted that, the 2nd OP under misconception orally directed the complainant to deposit 49 months balance towards commuted value of pension from 1-9-2001, the date of retirement upto 31-10-2015 amounting to Rs.80,360=00 at Rs.1,640=00 per month. This was uncalled for having no authority of any rule. The complainant acted upon the oral instructions and deposited in cash by four instalments amounting to Rs.80,360=00 and the same has been acknowledged by the 3rd OP.
The complainant further submitted that, the complainant sought for restoration of pension, since 15 years of recovery towards commuted value was completed as on 30-9-2016 and the complainant was informed that commutation value recovery commenced only from 1-9-2003 and it ends on 31-8-2018 and restoration can be possible only with effect from 1-9-2018.
The complainant further submitted that, if the restoration of CVP gets postponed to 1-9-2018, recovery effected from 1-9-2001 to 31-01-2015 at Rs.1640=00 p.m. The deposited amount of Rs.80,360=00 amounts to double recovery which is illegal. This whimsical act of the 2nd OP which amounts to deficiency in service that too when the 2nd OP has failed to repay even after pointing out the mistake. In this regard, the complainant wrote a letter to the 1st OP bringing these factors to his notice on 23/24-1-2017. The complainant also addressed a letter to the 3rd OP on 14-11-2016, who was pleased to write a letter to the 2nd OP for taking suitable action for refunding the excess amount deducted from 1-10-2001. Again the complainant wrote a letter on 5-1-2017 and 6-1-2017 to the 2nd OP regarding the unnecessary and uncalled for deposit of Rs.80,360=00 and for refund of Rs.80,360=00 got deposited unnecessarily.
The complainant further submitted that, again on 24-2-2007 the complainant wrote a letter to the Asst. General Manager, Head office, SBM, Bengaluru for taking steps for refund of Rs.80,360=00. The complainant further submitted that in reality, no excess amount of pension as mentioned, but it is towards commuted pension. The complainant approached all the authorities but they have not taken any steps for refunding the excess amount of Rs.80,360=00 which was unnecessarily got deposited as commuted value pension for 49 months at Rs.1640=00 per month from 1-9-2001 to 31-01-2015, which a lapse and deficiency in service from the 2nd OP squarely.
The complainant further submitted that, fed up with the unresponsive attitude of the OPs, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the OPs on 16-3-2017 and the said notice was duly served on the OPs, but the OPs did not reply to the said notice. Hence the present complaint is filed.
3. After service of the notice, the OP No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel. On behalf of the 3rd OP one Sri.Nagendrappa has appeared before the Forum. The OP No. 1 and 2 have filed common objection and the 3rd OP did not file any objection or affidavit evidence.
4. In the version, the OP No.1 and 2 have contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. This forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. There is no such relationship of dealer and consumer between the complainant and the OP No.1 and 2 at any point of time and as such there is no question of deficiency of service to the complainant at the hands of the OP No.1 and 2 in any manner. This forum cannot entertain the matter involved with monetary aspects of official correspondences.
The OPs further contended that, the averments made in para 2 of the complaint is not disputed and para 3 of the complaint is not concerned to these OPs and hence the same are neither admitted nor disputed. The averments made in para 4 of the complaint specifically denied as false and baseless. The deposit of any of such amount by the complainant is voluntarily and not at the oral direction of the 2nd OP, since the 2nd OP is no way concerned to the said aspect. The complainant retired from the Govt. department on 30-9-2001 and the commutation amount released on 30-7-2003. Other averments made in the complaint are no concerned to these OPs and the complainant has to seek for remedy for discrepancies if any with the 3rd OP and of his department where he was working and not with these OPs. As such, the remedy left open to the complainant is to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievances if any.
The OPs further contended that, the 2nd OP is a public sector financial institution which is only concerned with the disbursement of money to the concerned person as per the directions of the government agency. As such, the sercvie of the OP No.1 and 2 banks is only as an intermediary between the complainant and the 3rd OP. The OP No.1 and 2 has not received any service charges from the complainant towards the service so rendered to them and as such the question of claiming compensation towards the alleged deficiency of service does not arise at all. Hence, the OP No.1 and 2 are neither jointly nor severally not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant in any manner. The OP No.1 and 2 have discharged their duty as per the instructions of the 3rd OP and as such the option left open to the complainant to approach the competent court of law against the 3rd OP for legal redress and not against the OP No.1 and 2 in any manner. As per the direction of the 3rd OP, the 2nd OP has recovered the excess pension amount from the complainant which was paid by the complainant and not commutation amount. The petition is pending at KAT at Bengaluru. The other allegations made in the complaint which are contradictory to this objection and are not denied as false are hereby specifically denied as false. The 1st OP is adopting the same objection. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
5. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant and 2nd OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced documents which were marked as annexure-1 to 11. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents and then posted the cases for orders.
6. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
1. Whether the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable before the forum?
2. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
3. What Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are;
Point No.1: The complaint is not maintainable
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: As per the final order below.
REASONS
8. Looking into the allegations made in the complaint and also version filed by the OP No.1 and 2, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant has retired from the Govt. service on 30-9-2001 and pension was sanctioned with effect from 1-10-2001 bearing PPO No.205756. It is also admitted fact that, the commuted value of pension of Rs.2,05,853=00 was released as per the direction of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal order dated 30-7-2013 and the same is recovering from the complainant of Rs.1,640=00 every month it will be restored after 15 years.
9. Preliminary objection of the OPs is that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. This forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. There is no such relationship of dealer and consumer between the complainant and the OP No.1 and 2 at any point of time and as such there is no question of deficiency of service to the complainant at the hands of the OP No.1 and 2 in any manner. This forum cannot entertain the matter involved with monetary aspects of official correspondences.
10. Admittedly, the complainant is a retired government servant of the Karnataka State, who was working as Asst. Director of the Fishers. Any grievances pertaining to his condition of his service including pension ought to be filed before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal under the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Act 1985. Under 3 (q) of the KAT Act Service matter has been defined. When the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to entertain the grievance pertaining to service matter, the only remedy available to the complainant is to approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain any service matter pertaining to a government servant. Be that as it may all pension related matters are within the condition of service of a Govt. Servant. Hence, in the absence of jurisdiction, the complaint filed by the complainant is wholly without jurisdiction. Hence, we deem it proper to dispose the complaint and direct the complainant to approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly we answer this point in the Negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is disposed off with the direction to approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 14th day of December 2017)
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
