Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

348/2009

R.Karthiyayini - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager State Bank of india - Opp.Party(s)

Nandini Ram

24 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                                         Date of Filing : 27.04.2009

                                                                        Date of Order : 24.08.2015.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                      : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A.L.L.B.,                                   : MEMBER I

                 TR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

                            C.C.NO.348/2009

MONDAY THIS 24^TH  DAY OF AUGUST 2015

 

R. Karthiyayini,

Daughter of Late K. Ramachandran,

No.115, Sea View Enclave,

Neelakarai,

Chennai 600 041.                                          ..Complainant

 

                                                 ..Vs..

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Teynampet Branch,

594 Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 018.                                           .. Opposite party.

 

For the Complainant             :  M/s. Nandini Ram & another      

 

For the Opposite party         :  M/s. P.D. Audikesavalu & others    

 

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.      

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT        

 

 

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

        The complainant is drawing her pension from the opposite party since 1^st May 2005.   The complainant’s Bank account No. is 01190044058 and after computerization the No. is 10661534855 and Pension No.634130500334.   The Central Pension Accounting office, Government of India, New Delhi addressed to the Manager, State Bank of India, Saidapet, Chennai has authorized payment of pension to the complainant, holder of PPO No.634130500334 w.e.f. 1.5.2005.   The complainant’s pension was drastically reduced from Rs.14,342/- p.m. to Rs.4384/- p.m. for the months of August 2007 and September 2007.  The complainant made phone calls and also went in person from one back to the other, not knowing the reason for the sudden decrease causing the complainant a lot of anxiety, uncertainty and mental agony.   On a perusal of the Central Pension Processing Centre, Chennai, they have stated that pension has been paid in excess to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,51,040/- and will be recovered from the complainant’s pension at Rs.4,000/- p.m. from August 2007.    The corrected pension payable being Rs.11,914/- p.m. w.e.f. August 2007.  Whereas the amount credited by the opposite party to the complainant’s pension account is Rs.4384/- p.m. only as can be seen from the Bank’s statement.   Despite of several demands made by the complainant there has been no response from the opposite party.   As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and the same has caused  great mental agony and hardship to the  complainant.    Hence the complaint.     

2.      Written version of  opposite party  is  as follows:-

It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The complainant has a Savings Bank account bearing No.10661534855 with the Teynampet Branch of State Bank of India at Chennai, which she has named for the purpose of collecting her pension and disbursing the same to her through that savings bank account held by her in that branch.   The complainant had retired from service on 29.4.2005 and as such the complainant was not eligible for Dearness Pension paid every month @ 50% on the Basic pension that is being paid to pensioners who had retired prior to 1.4.2004.  Further the complainant had availed the benefit of commutation of pension @ Rs.3530/- p.m. as against the Basic Pension of Rs.8825/- p.m.  Due to inadvertence the opposite party had granted the aforesaid benefit of Dearness Pension @ 50% on the Basic pension for the period from May 2005 to July 2007 and resultantly the Dearness Allowances payable during that period had also been computed on the aggregate of the Basic Pension and Dearness Pension, instead of restricting it on Basic pension alone.  The above said error in calculation of pension had resulted in excess payment of pension for a total sum of Rs.1,51,040/- during the said period from May 2005 to July 2007.   On noticing the aforesaid excess payment the Central Pension Processing Centre of the opposite party by letter dated 25.8.2007 called upon the complainant to pay the same, failing which the said amount was to be recovered from the pension @ Rs.4000/- p.m. from August 2007.  Since the complainant did not remit the said excess payment of Rs.1,51,040/- as requested in the aforesaid letter dated 25.8.2007 of the opposite party, the same had to be recovered from her pension @ Rs.4000/- p.m. from August 2007.

3.     She is alone responsible for not having singed her life certificate within the stipulated time limit for ensuring continuity of payment of pension on the due dates, and on receipt of the said certificate from her, it was duly processed by the concerned authorities and payment of pension has been effected.   The opposite party has not committed any negligence or deficiency  in rendering service or unfair trade practice.       Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed.   

Additional Written version of opposite party is as follows:

4.     The complainant has been paid an aggregate a sum of Rs.1,51,040/- during the period from May 2005 to July 2007 in excess of her actual entitlement of pension, which the opposite party is lawfully entitled to recover from her from subsequent payments of pension falling due from her and the complainant cannot take any exception to the same.  As such the allegations of deficiency  in banking service and unilateral reduction  / denial of Central Government Pension to the complainant are absolutely without any substance and the reliefs that have been now sought in the complaint are untenable.   Hence the complaint is to be dismissed. 

 

5.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 were marked on the side of the complainant.   The  Opposite party  have filed their proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 were  marked on the side of the opposite party.  

6.         The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

7. POINTS 1 & 2 :

        Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version and additional written version filed by the opposite party, the  proof  affidavit filed by both side and Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 filed on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 filed on the side of the  opposite party and considered both side arguments.   There is no disputes that the complainant is a retired Senior Accounts officer and Secretary to the Accountant General (A & E) Chennai w.e.f. 29.4.2005.   The opposite party is the pension disbursing authority in respect of the pension payable to the complainant is all not disputed between the parties.  

8.     The complainant raised grievance against the opposite party which is remitting the pension payable to the complainant in the account maintained by the complainant in the opposite party bank and also authorized that they have to prepare portion of pension order copy to the complainant as per rule.  But the opposite party had not given the portion of pension order copy on several request made by her till the date of filing this complaint and the pension paid and remitted in the account of the complainant was drastically reduced from Rs.14,342/- p.m. to Rs.4384/- p.m for the months of August 2007 and September 2007.   Despite of enquiry made by the complainant, the opposite party has not given proper answer for the same.    Letter from State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing Centre, Chennai dated 25.8.2007 was sent  by courier to the complainant.  On perusal of the same the complainant came to know that the pension paid to the complainant was excess to the tune of Rs.1,51,040/- and same will be recovered from her pension at Rs.4000/-p.m. from August 2007.  However a sum of Rs.4384/- alone for the month of August 2007 was remitted in her account is also not proper.    As such recovery for that month was appeared to be made for Rs.7530/-.  As such the amount remitted towards pension in the account of the complainant by the opposite party bank is also not regular and proper.  Further raised grievance that pension made was not paid or remitted by the opposites party in the account of the complainant from 1.11.2008 due to non submission of life certificate which  was submitted in the week of July 2007.  Even the pension amount for the period had not been remitted immediately and paid belatedly.  Further the excess amount alleged to have been paid by the opposite party is not on the basis of the misrepresentation made by the complainant or fault of the complainant.  As such the said excess payment made if any to the complainant by the opposite party is not recoverable.  Therefore as stated above, the opposite party has committed deficiency of service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant and the complainant claims recovery of amount, damages and cost as mentioned in the compliant.

9.     However the opposite party has resisted the complaint stating that the grievance raised by the complainant that they have not issued or handed over the portion of pension order copy to the complainant is not correct.    If this has been so, the complainant would have been personally come to the office and asked to collect the said copy and the said copy is filed along with this complaint as such the allegation made for the same is not sustainable.   Further the complainant was retired from service on 29.4.2005.   As such she was not eligible for Dearness Pension paid every month at the rate of 50% on the basic pension i.e.  being paid to pensioners who had retired prior to 1.4.2004.   Contrary to this due to inadvertence the opposite party has calculated the monthly pension to be payable for the complainant included a sum of Rs.4,413/- as  Dearness pension and also calculated inclusion for the said amount for Dearness amount and have paid to the complainant from May 2005 to July 2007 the amount paid excess towards pension paid to the complainant is totaling Rs.1,51,040/-.  While it was found out by the Central Pension Processing Centre, Chennai and accordingly ordered for recovery of the same, in this regard the letter dated 25.8.2007 was sent due to acknowledgment not obtained for the same, subsequently through courier the said letter was sent on 6.10.2007 to the complainant and recovery for the said amount was effected from 31.8.2007 till 1.10.2014 as mentioned in the particulars furnished in Ex.A3.  The complainant is liable to repay the excess amount drawn in the pension as mentioned above to the opposite party and though prior notice in this regard may not be mandatory as stated, the opposite party has sent notice to the complainant.  As such the deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant on the part of the opposite party is not sustainable and the complainant is not entitled for any refund amount and  compensation as claimed in the compliant.    Further the delay for payment of pension for certain months were also due to non submission of life certificate by the complainant, immediately after life certificate given by the complainant it was processed and paid to the complainant.  Therefore there is no delay in paying  and remitting monthly pension to the complainant and the complaint is to be dismissed.

10.    The first grievance raised by the complainant is that the opposite party has not handed over the portion of the pension order despite of her demand in time.  Though the opposite party has denied the same stated that it is the duty of the complainant to approach the opposite party office and to get the portion of pension order copy and the complainant herself filed Ex.A1 The Central Pension Accounting Office  order as a pensioner copy so that the allegation that she has not received the portion of pension order copy  is not sustainable.   However considering the Ex.A1 it is the pensioner copy issued by the Central Pension Accounting office, Government of India to the complainant.  This copy considered as pension order on the basis of the same the Pension Disbursing authority the opposite party would have prepared  the actual pension alleged to monthly pension and order for portion of payment of pension order copy and would have furnished to the complainant.  But there is no proof filed on the side of the opposite party or it concerned i.e. Centralized Pension Processing Centre, Chennai which ought to have been prepared a portion of pension order copy in respect of the complainant pension,  have sent or handed over the same to the complainant.  Even the said portion of said pension order copy prepared by the opposite party or its concerned  Centralized Pension Processing Centre, Chennai have not been filed before this forum as document.  Therefore we can very well conclude that  as stated by the complainant the opposite party being the pension disbursing authority for the pension of the complainant have not furnished the portion of pension order copy prepared by them for the issuance of pension to the complainant in due manner. 

11.    Further though the complainant basic monthly pension is Rs.8825/- as mentioned in Ex.A1 the pension order since she was not furnished the portion of pension order to be prepared and handed over to the complainant in respect of the pension payable to the complainant, she is not aware of the actual monthly pension amount including the Dearness Allowance thereon from the beginning to subsequent date thereon and till this date.   However the opposite party has filed with particulars of calculation of pension to be payable, paid and excess paid thereon with Dearness Allowance etc.  as Ex.B1 & Ex.B3 for the relevant date from May, 2005 to 27.11.2013 reveals that the amount and particulars mentioned thereon are not specifically neither disputed by the complainant nor produced any contrary proof of document to disprove the same.  Therefore as mentioned in particulars of Ex.A3 from May 2005 to 31.7.2007 the pension payable and pension paid mentioned thereon are to be taken as admitted by the complainant.  Further as per Ex.B1 from 1.5.2005 to 31.7.2007 the opposite party has by mistake calculated the monthly pension to be payable to the complainant including the Dearness pay of Rs.4,413/- p.m and additional Dearness allowance for the said amount thereon were paid and which is excess payment of Rs.1,51,040/- is acceptable.   This cannot be denied by the complainant,  the particulars of wrong calculation by including Dearness Pension  which is not eligible to be paid for the complainant towards pension since she was retired on 29.4.2005.  Basic pension that is being paid to pensioners who had retired prior to 1.4.2004 were also not intimated to the complainant  is proved in this enquiry.  Further even in Ex.A2 letter sent by the Centralized Pension Processing Centre, Chennai is also mentioned about the particulars of reason for excess payment.   Therefore as contended by the complainant the complainant was put in dark regarding the recovery made by the opposite party in her monthly pension towards the excess payment is also acceptable.   However the excess payment paid to the complainant towards the monthly pension from  May 2005 to July 2007 a sum of Rs.1,51,040/- is recoverable from the complainant as per law and fact.  

The following citation relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party in support of the said contention is squarely applicable for the facts and circumstances of the case. 

1.                                  2009 STPL (WEB 146 SC

                   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES HARYAN

1.  

ISRAIL KHAN & ORS.

 

2.                                2012 STPL (WEB) 437 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CHANDI PRASAD UNIYAL & ORS.

..VS..

STATE  OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

 

3.                                       2013 STPL (WEB) 902 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

U.T. CHANDIGARH & ORS.

..VS..

GURCHANRAN SINGH & ANR.

 

 

 

12.    However  contrary to this the submission made by the complainant counsel that since the said excess amount was paid not based on the misrepresentation made by the complainant the said amount cannot be recoverable and the amount recovered are to be refunded to the complainant is not acceptable.   In this regard though the counsel for complainant has referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of 

 

 

D. MADURAI PILLAI

..VS..

ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

WRIT PETITION No.15963 of 2012

Dated 17.9.2012

 

Since as per the  citation referred by the learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon mentioned above and another citation in the case of the

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

..VS..

RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER)

Rendered  by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 

2014  STPL (WEB) 495 SC

In which it is held that  though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered in some of the cases the excess payment made to the pensioner cannot be recoverable, as such order were passed  by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the basis of extra ordinary Jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution.   Since this forum being District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Constituted under the Consumer Protection Act cannot invoke such powers and pass such order.   

13.    Further considering the complainant was a retired  Accountant General and the amount payable as pension to the complainant and the complainant cannot be considered to be a lower rank employee and getting very meager amount of pension,  the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the recovery of the excess amount paid to her.  Therefore we are of the considered view that the excess amount of payment of pension paid to the complainant by the opposite party due to inadvertence calculation mistake a sum of Rs.1,51,040/- and the action  in this regard being taken by the opposite party and the recovery were made is not said to be illegally or against law. 

14.    However the opposite party would have informed the complainant about the reasons and the particulars of recovery regarding the excess payment in time before imposing recovery proceedings.   But in this case this has not been done by the opposite party.  As per the document filed by the opposite party reveals that the opposite party have themselves without any intimation has taken recovery proceedings and started to recover amount from the pension in irregular manner without adopting proper procedure and fixing period for recovery.  It is acceptable that this would have caused hardship  to the pensioner / complainant.  

15.    Further the contention of the opposite party that it is not mandatory to inform the complainant for recovery proceedings by giving proper notice is not acceptable.  Even as per the verdict found in the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras reported in

2005  Writ L.R. 703

As per Reserve Bank of India the first Regulation is dated 18.4.1991 the recovery of excess payment of pension can be made without notice the pension paying branch of the company has given the right  to adjust the same against the amount standing to the credit of the pensioner’s account to the extent possible  the said order.   Further stated that “ then call upon the pensioner to refund  the  shortfall”.   Admittedly  in this case no amount was adjusted toward the recovery of the complainant from the available amount of the complainant bank account.  As such as per the above verdict  of the Hon’ble High Court and as per the Reserve Bank of India the first Regulation  for the recovery of the excess paid to the complainant the opposite party would have informed suitably and having given opportunity to the petitioner to make representation then the recovery proceeding would have been effected.  But in this case the opposite party has not followed such procedure.  Further the initial recovery amount said to have been made per month appear  to be half of the pension amount.  As such certainly such recovery would have been caused mental agony and hardship to the  petitioner / complainant  to survive on the pension amount after recovery of the said amount.   Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite party had committed deficiency of service by not adopting proper procedure and not intimating the complainant about the recovery of excess payment and arbitrarily have fixed difference amount and recovery in different month is amount to deficiency of service, as such which caused  mental agony and hardship to the complainant is acceptable  for which the opposite party is liable to pay necessary compensation.

16.    Further though the complainant has raised delayed payment of pension for the period of 2009 on the event of non submission of life certificate since the same has been replied by the opposite party that the delay for the payment of pension for the said period is due to non submission of life certificate by the complainant  in time and after the complainant furnished the life certificate that was processed and the pension has been paid which is due to delay in submission of life certificate by the complainant and administrative reason of processing the same only and there is no intentional delay caused by opposite party in this regard is acceptable.

17.    Further though the complainant was provided pension order copy by the opposite party, the opposite party has not furnished the extract copy of Pass book entries containing particulars of the monthly remitted pension and also recovery made for the excess payment of pension to the complainant is acceptable.  Hence it would be proper to this forum to direct the opposite party to furnish the entire copy of the extract pass book in respect of the account maintained by the complainant.

18.    As discussed above the opposite part is entitled to recover the excess amount of the pension of Rs.1,51,040/- from the complainant and the action taken in this regard and recovery made is cannot be said to be illegal or the complainant cannot resist the same as a  matter of right.    Therefore the complainant is not entitled for refund of amount recovered as excess payment of pension against the opposite party as prayed for in the complaint.   However, for the deficiency of service committed by the opposite party in the action taken and recovery of excess payment of pension and recovery made thereon, the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as just and reasonable compensation to the complainant.

 

19.    Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as  compensation for deficiency in service and also to furnish the extract of the complainant account maintained in the opposite party bank for remittance of the pension  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupee five thousand only)  as litigation charges to the complainant and as such the points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) as  compensation for deficiency in service and also to furnish the extract of the complainant account maintained in the opposite party bank for remittance of the pension  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupee five thousand only)  as litigation charges to the complainant  within  six weeks  from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order passed till the date of realization.

 Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this  24^th   day of August  2015.

 

MEMBER-I                                        MEMBER-II                                          PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

 

Ex.A1- 24.6.2005      - Copy of letter by Central Pension Accounting officer Govt. of India,

                               addressed  to the Manager, State Bank of India.

 

Ex.A2- 6.10.2007      - Copy of letter by the opposite party to the complainant.

 

Ex.A3- 25.8.2007      - Copy of details by the Chief Manager, Centralized Pension Processing

                               Centre, Chennai to the complainant.

 

Ex.A4- 27.11.2007     - Copy of letter by the opposite party to the complainant.

 

Ex.A5- 31.8.07 to

          19.3.2009      - Copy of Online statement of  Bank account.

 

Ex.A6- 19.3.09 to

          18.4.2009      - Copy of online statement of bank account.

 

Ex.A7- 16.2.2009      - Copy of emails.

Ex.A8- 16.2.2009      - Copy of customer care email.

Ex.A9-           -                 - Copy of the Hindu newspaper.

Ex.A10- 11.10.2007   - Copy of letter to the Director, The consumer Citizens, Civic

                               Action Group, Adyar, Chennai.

Ex.A11-         -        - Copy of Bank statement.

Ex.A12-         -        - Copy of statement of account issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A13- 3.11.2012     - Copy of withholding order issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A14-         -        - Copy of Pension pay order.

Ex.A15-         -        - Copy of complainant’s summary of the amount.

 

Opposite party’ side documents: -    

 

Ex.B1-           -        -        - Copy of Pension Excess Paid details.

Ex.B2- 19.8.2002      - Copy of Scheme for payment of pensions

Ex.B3-                    -        - Copy of Statement of calculations of pension.

Ex.B4-                    -        - Copy of Inspection report of test Audit.

Ex.B5-                    -        - Copy of statement marking hold entries in SB account.

Ex.B6- 3.11.2012      - Copy of letter by the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.B7- 8.10.2012      - Copy of representation by the complainant to the Pay and Accounts

                                Officer.

Ex.B8- 4.7.2013        - Copy of letter by Teynampet branch of opposite party to Centralized

                              Pension Processing Centre of opposite party.

Ex.B9- 14.9.2013      - Copy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                                        MEMBER-II                                          PRESIDENT.