West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/37/2015

Mevati Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India. - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs. Rita Singha.

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

                                                             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member.

 

   

Complaint Case No.37/2015

                                                       

Mevati Devi……………….………Complainant

Versus

The Branch Manager, SBI, Kharagpur…………..Opp. Party.

 

 

 For the Complainant : Rita Singh, Advocate.

 For the O.P.                : Mr. Badal Kumar Raj, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 16/09/2015

                               

ORDER

        Bibekananda Pramanik, President- Complainant case, in brief, is that her husband Shankar Yadav, since deceased, was an employee under Divisional Personnel Officer (W), Kharagpur Workshop, S.E. Railway as Senior Technician and he retired from his service on 31/10/2005. After retirement, he used to draw his pension from the Op. no.1, i.e. SBI, Kharagpur Railway Station Branch from his A/c No.11041315955. The complainant is the legally married wife of late Shankar Yadav. After his demise, the Workshop Personnel Officer, Kharagpur sanctioned the family pension being No.PEN/SE/KGP(W)/2005/B-445/BK-55/P30/PS-E/488/10/106531; dated 31/10/2005 in favour of the complainant vide letter No. P/403/OA/245/2013/Mevati Devi/3464 and advised her to make contact with the OP-Bank alongwith documentary proof for drawing family pension. After proper verification, the Op-Bank opened a S.B. A/c No.33382986762 in the said branch on 17/10/2013 and the Railway authority continued to send family pension of the deceased in favour of the complainant. On 02/04/2014, when the complainant went to draw her family pension from the Op-Bank then the complainant came to know that the OP-Bank has set hold the family pension of the complainant. In spite of request of the complainant, the Op-Bank

Contd…………..P/2

 

                                                    

 

                                                        (2)

did not set free the said account. The complainant is totally dependent on her family pension of her deceased husband and without getting such pension from the Op-Bank, the complainant is suffering irreparable loss. Such act of withholding pension amount without reasonable cause is totally illegal and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Op-Bank. Hence the complaint, praying for directing the Op-Bank to set free the S/B account immediately and for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and for litigation cost.

                   Op-Bank has contested this case by filing a written objection. Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the Op-Bank that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, that on or before filing of this complaint case, a title suit being No.87/2014 has been filed before the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court, Midnapore by one Smt. Mewati Devi against Smt. Juganta Devi and five others praying for a declaration that she  is the only wife and the window of deceased Shankar Yadav and she is entitled to get the family pension of her deceased husband. Op has got notice of the said title suit and as such, till disposal of that title suit, they are unable to disburse the money to any of the two claimant. Op admits that Shankar Yadav used to receive his monthly pension regularly till his death on 10/02/2011. Further according to the Op those defendants of that title suit are necessary party in this case and for non joinder of those persons, the present case is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. In the above circumstances, the Op claims dismissal of the present case.

Point for decision

Is the complainant entitled to get the relief, as prayed for.

 

Decision with reasons

               At the very outset, it to be mentioned here that neither the complainant not the Op has adduced any evidence, either oral or documentary, but they have filed some documents in support of their respective cases. On perusal of those documents as well as the respective pleadings of the parties, we find that by their letter dated 24/09/2013, M.M.S. Rao, Workshop Personnel Officer, Kharagpur by his letter No-P/403/OA-245/2013/Mevati Devi/3464 informed Smt. Mevati Devi that at the time of his retirement Shankar Yadav, Ex. Senior Technician submitted the settlement claim papers alongwith joint photograph (self and wife) duly attested towards sanction of pension and family pension and accordingly Pension Payment Order alongwith family pension was sanctioned at that  material period in favour of Smt. Mevati Devi in terms of PPO No.PEN/SE/KGP(W)/2005/B-445/BK-55/P30/PS-E/488/10/106531 dated 31/10/2005.  By the said letter, the complainant Smt. Mevati Devi was advised to contact with the Branch Manager, SBI, Kharagpur Station Branch alongwith documentary proof for drawing family pension.  It is not denied and disputed that in terms of the said letter and after proper verification of documents, the OP-Bank opened a S/B account being No.33382986762 in the name of the complainant. It is

Contd…………..P/3

 

                                                       

                                                        ( 3 )

also not denied and disputed that the complainant used to draw her family pension from that account. Now the question arises as to whether the OP-Bank was justified in denying withdrawal of the pension amount by the complainant from her said account ? According to the Op, one Mewati Devi has filed a Title Suit being No.87/20014 before the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court, Midnapore against the Op-Bank and five others praying for a declaration that she in the legally married wife and widow of the deceased Shankar Yadav and she is entitled to get the family pension etc. Relying upon their said statement, made in the w/o, Ld. Lawyer of the Op-Bank submitted at the time of hearing that since a title suit is pending claiming by another women as to be the wife/widow of said Shankar Yadav, so they are unable to permit the present complainant to withdraw the family pension amount by the complainant. Xerox copy of the plaint of that title suit has been filed in this case and we find there from that the present complainant has not been made a party to that suit and no relief has been claimed against her. We further find from the information slip issued on 17/08/2015 from the office of the Civil Judge (2^nd Court), Paschim Medinipur that no injunction order has been passed against the present Op in that title suit. Since there is no such restraining order against the present OP, so it is not under stood as to why they are not allowing the present complainant to withdraw her family pension, which has been duly sanctioned in her favour vide sanction order No.PEN/SE/KGP(W)/2005/B-445/BK-55/P30/PS-E/488/10/106531  dated 31/10/2005. Such act of the Op in not allowing the complainant to draw her family pension from her S/B A/c  without any restraining order of any competent court is highly illegal and unjustified thereby depriving a senior citizen and an aged widow in getting her family pension for her livelihood. This act of the OP also amounts to deficiency in service towards a pension account holder of it’s branch.

                In the fact and circumstances we are of the view that it is a fit and proper case, which deserves to be allowed.

                                          Hence, it is,

                                                Ordered,

                                                                      that the complainant case no.37/2015 is allowed on contest against the Op with cost. Op-Bank is directed to take necessary action so that the complainant can withdraw her family pension along with outstanding amount of pension within a month from this date of order. Op-Bank is also directed to pay interest @ 6% p.a. upon the withheld amount to the complainant and to pay Rs.20,000/-(Twenty thousand) to the complainant as compensation and litigation cost within one month from this date of order.            

Dictated & Corrected by me

                Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

           President                                        Member                                               President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur