O R D E R 

(per Sri S.Sreeram, Member)

          This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act., 1986 against the opposite party directing to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant, to grant costs of complaint and for other reliefs.

          The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

2.       The complainant is a retired serviceman and after his retirement, a sum of Rs.2,48,187/- towards commutation of pension was released by the Record Office, O/o.Army Medical Corps at Lucknow vide reference letter dt.7.7.2008 to credit the same to the account of complainant bearing No.30401363976 of branch of opposite party.  The office of Lucknow also issued a letter to that effect to the complainant and asked him to approach State Bank of India, Eluru. Accordingly the complainant approached S.B.I., Eluru who asked him to approach the opposite party as the accounts were transferred to opposite party.  The complainant approached the opposite party several times to know whether the said amount is credited to his account.  But the personnel of opposite party did not give any reply.  As such the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum in C.C.No.316/2008 and the Forum was pleased to pass an award on 29.4.2009 directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages etc.,  While so, the complainant approached the opposite party to get his accounts with upto date entries and the complainant found that a sum of Rs.2,29,993/- was credited to the account No.10677926255 on 25-2-2009 which is being operated in the joint names of complainant and his wife by ignoring the directions of Army Medical Corps.  Further the opposite party credited Rs.2,29,993/- to the joint account of complainant in stead of Rs.2,48,187/-.  The complainant got issued notice to opposite party on 18.5.2009 and the opposite party received the said notice on 20-5-2009, but kept quiet. Hence, the complaint.

3.       After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite party.  The opposite party filed version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and further contended that the LOC regarding the pension commutation papers were sent to this opposite party and the same were dispatched to SBI, Tanuku where the complainant is having and then the Tanuku branch forwarded the papers of complainant to Central Pension Processing Cell of SBI, at Hyderabad.  But the said papers were returned by the said cell stating that the papers have to be routed through Eluru branch only.  Thereupon the said papers were sent to Eluru branch and the opposite party sent the papers again to Central Pension Cell on 25.8.2008.  Subsequently the amount was credited by Tanuku Branch. The opposite party discharged the duty of routing agency, but no way connected with the encashing of LOC or crediting the account.  It is further contended that the opposite party being the Main branch in District, all the papers will be sent to the opposite party and the same were send them to concerned branch where the particular pensioner is having pension account.  It is further contended that initially an amount of Rs.2,29,993/- was credited and later an amount of Rs.18,810/- was also credited on 23.3.2009.  It is further contended that the complainant is having account with SBI, Tanuku and it is proper and necessary party.  It is further contended that the complainant already filed C.C.No.316/2008 for the same reliefs and as such the complaint is barred under principles of res-judicata and finally contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.       The complainant filed his chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A4 on his behalf.  The Manager (accounts) of opposite party filed chief affidavit, but no documents are marked.

5.       Heard both sides. Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of complainant.

6.       Now the points that stood for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in crediting fewer amounts than the amount granted towards commutation of pension and that too in the joint account of complainant and his wife by ignoring the directions of Army Medical Corpos, Lucknow?

1. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

1. To what extent?

Point Nos.1 and 2

7.       The contention of the complainant is that he is a retired serviceman and after his retirement, a sum of Rs.2,48,187/- towards commutation of pension was released by the Record Office, O/o.Army Medical Corps at Lucknow vide reference letter dt.7.7.2008 to credit the same to his account No.30401363976 being maintained with S.B.I., Tanuku branch.  It is further case of complainant that as per the directions of the authorities, he approached S.B.I., Eluru who asked him to approach the opposite party as the accounts were transferred to opposite party.  Though the complainant wandered around the opposite party several times, but the personnel of opposite party did not respond.  In those circumstances, the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum in C.C.No.316/2008 attributing deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  The complainant filed Ex.A1 award copy in C.C.No.316/2008 on the file of this Forum.  Perusal of the said award, it is clear that the opposite party in the said case was set exparte and the Forum after considering the facts of case awarded Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony vide the orders dt.29-4-2009 and also directed to credit the amounts to the account of complainant within 30 days from the date of dispatch of order.  But the present complaint is silent whether the compensation amounts were paid by the opposite party or not.  But perusal of Ex.A4 pass book discloses that an amount of Rs.2,29,993/- was credited to the joint account of complainant on 25-2-2009 i.e. before passing of award in C.C.No.316/2008 and got transferred to his account No.30401363976 on 9-3-2009.  As such the complainant has got knowledge about the amount credited in his account.  But it seems that the complainant has not raised objection at that time and got award in that case and now came up with this complaint attributing deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 

8.       Admittedly the complainant is having account with Tanuku SBI Branch and the Army authorities also sent the amounts to opposite party with a request to credit to that account.  But perusal of Ex.A4 discloses that the said amount was credited to joint account of complainant and his wife.  Further there is a difference of amount of Rs.18,400/-.  In this regard, the contention of opposite party is that every pension amounts would be sent to opposite party being Main Branch and the same will be sent to different branches and in that process after receipt of papers, the same were forwarded to Tanuku branch where the complainant is having account and as such they are no way concerned with the crediting of fewer amounts and with regard to crediting in joint account.  Admittedly the complainant is having account with Tanuku SBI Branch to which the amounts have to be credited.  Further Ex.A4 pass book also stood in the name of complainant and his wife with SBI Branch, Tanuku and the amounts were credited in the said joint account.  In this case, the complainant not arrayed the SBI, Tanuku branch as party to the proceedings.   As such this Forum has lost the valuable evidence to know under what circumstances the fewer amounts were credited to joint account of complainant and his wife and later how the amounts were transferred to the account of complainant.  Unless the SBI, Tanuku branch came into picture, it is very hard to ascertain the correct facts.  In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary and proper party for effective adjudication of matter. Though the award was passed in C.C.No.316/08 against the opposite party, it is only in the absence of opposite party.  In view of the above facts and circumstances, we found no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

Point No.3

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed but without costs.

Dictated to the shorthand writer transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this the 20^th day of March, 2015.

      (S.Sreeram)                                       (SMT. R.Seetaramamma)  

         MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT (FAC)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR COMPLAINANT                :  Evidence Affidavit

FOR OPPOSITE PARTy            :  Evidence Affidavit

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

FOR OPPOSITE partY:                  Nil

PRESIDENT (FAC)