Date of Filing :16.09.2022
Date of Disposal :25.07.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:25.07.2024
PRESENT
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R)
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
APPEAL No.1885/2022
Mr. Sharanappa Hosamani
S/o Late Saibanna
Aged about 65 years,
R/at No.582, 10th Main Road,
3rd Cross, Hanumanthanagar,
Bangalore-560 050.
(By Mr S Nagaraj, Advocate) Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Local Head office,
St. Marks Road,
Bangalore-560001.
2. The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Administrative Office
Super Market,
Gulbarga 585101
3. The Asst General Manager,
State Bank of India,
RBO Office,
Opp. District Court,
Yadagiri 585202.
4. The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India,
Main Branch, Hiremath Building,
Opp. Petrol Bunk,
Shahapur 585223.
(Mr B.C Guru Advocate for R2, R3 and R4) Respondents
-:ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Complainant aggrieved by the Order dated 02.08.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.450/2021 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short, the District Commission).
2. The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as the rank assigned to them by the District Commission
3. The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers and heard. Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be:
Whether impugned order dated 02.08.2022 passed in CC No.450/2021 does call any interference for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memorandum?
4. The Appellant herein had raised a Consumer Complaint against OPs 1 to 4 of whom OP2 to 4 are set ex-parte, while OP1 had contested the complaint. The complainant in his complaint has sought to pass an order against OPs for payment of balance retirement benefit amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a and sought compensation of Rs.1 lakh and legal expenses at Rs.10,000/-. It was his case; he was a Cashier cum Clerk under OP and was superannuated w.e.f 30.06.2018. He was working, sincerely, honestly, since 27.06.1986 but a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and had filed a Writ Petition No.24006/2014 against the order of Central Industrial Tribunal and in this regard, held correspondence with OPs from 2006 to 2020 for payment of due to the effect, interest at the rate of 12.75% p.a from 2004 up to 31.03.2021. The OPs and in particular OP1 had contended the Complainant is not a consumer and his dispute is not a consumer dispute.
In view of rival contentions of the parties to the complaint, DCDRC held complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Section 2(7) of CP Act 2019 and as a result dismissed the Complaint without costs. It is this order assailed in this Appeal, contending that in the case of K.N.Mehta Vs SBI Overseas Branch reported in III (1993) CPJ 1271 (Delhi) wherein held that – ‘delay of 5 months in crediting the amount. The Bank is guilty of deficiency in service or negligence for not crediting the amount in time in favour of the Respondent. Moreover, the bank has utilised the money for the period when it defaulted to credit in time in favour of the Respondent’. which was not properly perceived by DCDRC while passing the impugned order and would contend bank is a guilty of deficiency in service or negligence for not crediting the amount in time and dispute raised before DCDRC is perfectly comes within jurisdiction of Consumer Commission and he is a consumer within the definition of section 2 (7) of CP Act, 2019. We have gone through the ratio laid down in the decision and the facts of the case and the facts of the case under appeal. In our view, although the contention of the Appellant/complainant appears to be arguable, facts remain on facts of the case herein; such relationship could not be termed a Consumer and Service Provider. We have to observe herein, it is not that OP had held the pension amount of complainant after his superannuation and it is not that his employer had transferred the retirement benefits, comprising of commutation, gratuity, pension, and arrears of pension and terminal benefits to his banker and his banker withheld such benefits to the Complainant. In other words it is not his case that such amount payable to Complainant/Pensioner was transferred from his employer to his pension bank account and banker had utilised the money for the period alleged and if that be so matter would have been different and we did not have any confusion to hold that such relationship between the pensioner and pension payment bank is that of the consumer and service provider. It is therefore, what was held in case of Chairman, State Bank of India V. Brig. (Dr.) Sudhir Chandra Das reported in I (1994) CPJ 221 (West Bengal), could be not applied to the facts of the case in the appeal.
In the above such conclusion, we did not find any good grounds to interfere in the impugned order either for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memo or for any other reasons. Hence, proceed to dismiss the Appeal with no order as to costs.
5. Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned.
Lady Member Judicial Member
*s
