Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/614/2020

Sneh Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Pal Singh

11 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/614/2020
Date of Institution	:	24.12.2020
Date of Decision	:	11.4.2023

 

1.   Sneh Bansal Widow of late Dr. Satish Bansal R/o 208A, Leafstone Apartments, Highland Marg, Patiala Road, Zirakpur 140603 (Punjab).

2.   Amit Bansal son of late Dr. Satish Bansal, R/o 208A, Leafstone Apartments, Highland marg, Patiala road, Zirakpur 140603 (Punjab).

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Branch Manager Central bank of India SCO 58-59 Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh 160017.
2. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India A 18, Tagore Market, Najafgrh Road, Near Pillar No.330, Kirti nagar, New Delhi, Delhi 110015.
3. The Accountant General (A&E)-Punjab UT, Himalaya Marg, 17F, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017.

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Ajay Pal Singh counsel for complainants.
		Sh. Kanwar Singh Khera, vice counsel for Dr. Deepak Jinal, counsel for OP No.1&2. Claim against OP No.3 not pressed vide order dated 31.12.2020.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

1. Briefly stated that the husband of complainant No.1 retired from Punjab Health Department and the OP bank is the pension disbursing authority of the Dr. Satish Bansal  who was the husband of complainant No.1. It is alleged that the OP bank from the inception deliberately paying inadequate pensionary dues to  late husband of complainant No.1.  The late husband of the complainant No.1 after completion of 15 years of retirement represented to OP bank for disburse of the amount of commuted pension in his account after learning that the OP bank had been deliberately and intentionally defaulting in paying required pensionary dues.  On 30.11.2019 the OP bank credited an amount of Rs.18,34,485/- towards arrear of pension. However, subsequently the bank made a forcible reverse entry of the said amount in December 2019 after making a lien on the complainant’s account. An amount of Rs.1,66,612/ was also deducted on account of TDS by the bank wrongfully. It is alleged that the OP bank was not paying the pensionary dues regularly. The late husband of the complainant No.1 many times raised the issue of arrears of pension but nothing fruitful came out. Even the bank is not releasing family pension to the complainant No.1. A legal notice dated 1.8.2020 was also issued to the OP bank but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 in their reply stated that the answering OPs has been timely releasing the full pensionary dues of late Dr. Satish Bansal  as per his entitlement in accordance with  the terms and conditions of PPO issued by the Punjab Health Department. It is averred that late Dr. Satish Bansal himself failed to submit life certificate and the required representation regarding payment of his legitimate dues due to which the answering OPs were unable to consider the claim of late Dr. Satish Bansal in time. However, in the month of October 2019, November, 2019 the pension has been given in time period and pension of December 2019, January 2020 and February 2020 has been paid through arrear amount and now nothing is due.  However, it is averred that due to wrong calculation Rs.18,34,485/- were wrongly credited in the bank account of pensioner and when the mistake was realized then this amount was reversed back from the bank account. Revised details of restoration of commuted portion were received from the pension authorities and thereafter calculating the arrears, Rs.10,04,789/- was credited on 8.9.2020. Now nothing remains due.  It is averred that the answering OP bank has the right to rectify any mistake committed bonafide in wrongful calculation of the pension  and reverse the same.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Claim against OP No.3  was not pressed by the counsel for the complainant vide his statement at bar dated 31.12.2020.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that the arrears of pension were not correctly worked out and were not disbursed in time in respect of the pension of her late husband.
8. On perusal of file, it is evident that the complainant impleaded Accountant General (A&E)- Punjab UT in the instant complainant as proforma party i.e. OP No.3 but the complainant himself have not pressed claim against OP No.3 i.e. Accountant General (A&E)- Punjab at whose behest & on whose behalf pension was disbursed to the late husband of complainant No.1 & family pension to the complainant being the wife.  The OP No.3 was necessary party for the just adjudication of the pension arrears claim as they are the Controller of accounts of pension disbursal.
9. As far as allegation of late payment of arrears is concerned, it is observed from documents that the recovery towards commutation of pension was required to be stopped w.e.f. 1.11.2015 wherein the same was not stopped. It is also observed that the OPs No.1&2 only took action of stopping EMI recovery towards  commutation of pension after the complainant gave the representation, wherein the authorities of the OPs NO.1&2 Bank were duty bound  to stop themselves which was not done.
10.  Hence, we are of the concerted view that not stopping of EMI recovery towards commutation of pension in time, has caused mental agony and harassment to the complainants hence, OPs NO.1&2, are deficient in providing service to the complainant.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs NO.1&2 are directed as under:-

1. to pay interest at the rate as applicable on the saving bank account deposits on the delayed disbursement of pensionary benefit for the period of delayed payment of the same.
2. to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.      This order be complied with by the OPs No.1&2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above
13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/ [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member