DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 369 of 2022.

 

1. Smt. Hena Rani Deb(Datta),

W/O. Tapan Kr. Datta,

R/O. Datta Kutir Banik Chowmuhani,

P.O.- ONGC, Agartala, 

P.S.-Amtali, Pin-799014,

Dist.- West Tripura …....…...................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Badharghat Branch, ONGC,

P.O. & P.S.- A.D. Nagar, Agartala,

Dist.- Tripura(West),

Pin-799014.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank, 

Udaipur Branch, 

P.O. & P.S.- Udaipur, 

Dist.-Gomati Tripura, Pin-799116.....................................Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant     : Sri Purushuttam Roy Barman.

       Miss Nibedita Ghosh,

       Miss Aradhila Debbarma,

       Advocates. 

 

For the O.P. Nos.1 & 2    : Sri Prabir Saha,

      Sri Sujit Kr. Banerjee. 

      Advocates. 

 

ORDER  DELIVERED  ON: 15/03/2023.

F I N A L  O R D E R

The complainant Smt. Hena Rani Deb(Datta)  has filed this U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Badharghat Branch as O.P. No.1 & the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Udaipur Branch. 

  The pleading is that the Complainant retired from her service on 30/09/2010 and has been getting pension. On her prayer detail 21/10/2020 her pension was transferring from Punjab National Bank, Udaipur Branch to Punjab National Bank, Badharghat Branch. Since 2019- 2021 the Complainant has been receiving pension from Punjab National Bank, Badharghat Branch and till the month of September, 2021 she has been drawing pension for Rs.27,383/-. But in the month of October, 2021 the O.P. No.1 deducted Rs. 9,308/- from her pension. The Complainant 

submitted representation for pension payment statement w.e.f. 2015 and also to stop any deduction. But since the month of November, 2021, Rs.11,364/- was deducted. The O.P. informed the husband of the Complainant that the commutation money of the Complainant has been due from the month of April, 2015. Thus non-deduction of the commutation money by the O.P. for 78 months is an act of negligence. 

2. The Complainant took up the issue with the Ombudsman. The O.P. took the plea of inadvertent non-deduction for 78 months. Hence, there was excess payment by the Bank. Now, the Complainant prays for recovery of Rs.5,364/- per month and compensation for negligence of the O.P. The O.Ps. in written objection pleaded that the Complainant has been drawing excess amount. Hence, O.Ps. now deducted Rs.8,000/- per month and presently the Complainant has been drawing Rs.16019/- per month as per RBI circular.

 3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY BOTH PARTIES:

The Complainant filed evidence on affidavit and O.P. also submitted evidence on affidavit. 

 POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

4.  The following points are taken up for discussion and decision:-

      (I). Whether deduction of pension by the O.P. Bank due to earlier inadvertent excess payment is irrational?

(II). Whether the O.Ps. are guilty of deficiency in service? 

ARGUMENT OF OPPOSITE SIDE : 

On 10/03/2023 Learned Counsel of the Complainant was absent hence, argument of the O.P. was heard. 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

Both the points are taken-up together for convenience for decisions. 

Admitted position is that the Complainant paid excess amount inadvertently and husband of the Complainant was informed by the Bank as stated by the Complainant in Para-14 of her complaint.    As such as a matter of fact the Complainant can not take advantage of such inadvertent payment. We consider that excess payment was made for 78 months as such the present deduction of Rs.8,000/- per month is not excessive. We consider the fact that even after deduction of Rs.8,000/- per month the Complainant has been receiving Rs.16,019/- per month. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with such deduction by the O.P. Bank. 

 

Hence, there is no deficiency in service for which this Commission is required to interfere with. Both the points are decided against the Complainant. Hence, the complaint is dismissed and without cost.        

      Supply a certified copy of the order to both the parties free of cost.    

 

Announced.

 

 

 SRI GOUTAM  DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.