C.F. CASE No.                      :            CC/2012/93

COMPLAINANT                  :           Bijan Kumar Sarkar,

                                    A/21, Lichubagan

                                    Motijheel, Dum Dum,

                                    Kolkata – 700074  

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs   : 1)     The Deputy General Manager,

                                    State Bank of India,

                                    Administrative Office, Bidhannagar,

                                    C.I.T. Scheme No. VIIM,

                                    1/16 V.I.P. Road,

                                    Kolkata – 700054

                                       2)      The Chief Manager,

                                    State Bank of India,

                                    Kalyani Branch, B-9/139, Civic Centre

                                    Central Park, P.O. Kalyani,

                                    Dist. Nadia

                                       3)      The Regional Manager,

                                    Regional Business Office

                                    State Bank of India

                                    P.O. Krishnagar

                                    Dist. Nadia, PIN – 741101

                                       4)     The Chief General Manager,

                                    State Bank of India,

                                    Kolkata Local Head Office

                                    Samriddhi Bhavan, 2^nd Floor,

                                    1, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700001

                                        5)     The Chairman,

                                    State Bank of India, Corporate Centre,

                                    State Bank Bhavan,

                                    Madam Came Road, Mumbai – 400021

PRESENT                : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT

   : SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER

   : SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH,          MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                         :         14^th March, 2014

:    J U D G M E N T    :

            This case was filed by Bijan Kumar Sarkar on 19.12.12 against five opposite parties, the officials of the State Bank of India.  The facts of the complainant’s case, to put, in a nutshell, are as below:-            

            The complainant, Bijan Kumar Sarkar is an employee of State Bank of India since December, 1978.  He worked at Kalyani Branch office at the State Bank of India till his voluntary retirement on 31.12.10.  In 1982 the State Bank of India introduced Employees’ Mutual Welfare Scheme to provide medical assistance and other benefits since September, 1986.  He became a member of the said welfare scheme.  The bank denied to accept the residual amount of welfare fund component and debarred him from all facilities of the scheme.  The complainant voluntarily retired and he was advised not to report for duty on and from 01.01.11.  The case of the complainant is similar to that of Jayanta Kumar Saha of Tarakeshwar Branch of State Bank of India. The bank violated the rules of the scheme to the detriment to the complainant by not deducting the residual amount after retirement.  Hence, the complainant prayed for all benefits of the scheme.  The complainant also prayed for a direction of recovery of Rs.1,200/- + Rs. 480/- = Rs.1680/- from the complainant (residual amount of welfare fund component of the scheme).  He also prayed for all facilities of the welfare scheme and compensation of Rs.65,000/- for mental agony and harassment along with cost of Rs. 25,000/-.

            The written objection was filed by OP No. 3 on 24.04.13 challenging the plaint of the petitioner.  Another written statement was filed on 11 July, 2013 by the Bank.

            The claimant has no cause of action.  The case is malafide and not maintainable.  The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   The complaint is barred by limitation.  The complainant is not at all a consumer.  Para – 4 to 37 of the complaint are not true.  The complainant was required to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum at the time of retirement towards welfare fund component up to attaining to 60 years of age in order to get the benefit of the scheme.  The complainant did not contribute the amount.  Hence, the scheme became irregular and was discontinued.  It was an omission on the part of the complainant and there was no fault on the part of the bank regarding deduction of the contribution from the salary.  The complainant failed to furnish the required documents as per provision of the welfare scheme.  So he is not legible for the benefit of the scheme.

            From the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed.

POINTS FOR DECESION

1. Point No. 1:   Is the complainant a consumer?
2. Point No. 2:   Was it the fault on the part of the Bank to recover the residual amount or the fault of the complainant to pay the said amount?
3. Point No. 2:   What other relief the complainant is entitled to get?

REASOND DECISIONS

            For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.

            ‘Annexure – B’ is the letter of authority from the employee given by Bijan Kumar Sarkar to the Branch Manager, South Sinthee Branch for deduction of Rs. 60/- from the salary of Bijan Kumar Sarkar.  Thus, it is admitted position that Bijan Kumar Sarkar was an employee of the bank in the grade of Assistant Manager and he was also a subscriber to the Employees’ Mutual Welfare Scheme thus, in the eye of law he is a consumer of the State Bank of India vide 2004 CTJ 317 Kerala High Court (CP).

            ‘Annexure C & D’ are applications of voluntary retirement scheme from bank service on 31.08.10 it was signed by the complainant.  ‘Annexure – F’ is the State Bank of India Employees Mutual Welfare Scheme at 6.1.4.2(B)(ii) in column 3 the rule runs, “Where the employees have sought voluntary retirement before attaining the age of superannuation specified in terms of Rules / conditions of service applicable to them, they shall be asked to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum, at the time of voluntary retirement, towards Welfare Fund component upto the date they attain the age of superannuation.”

            We have meticulously gone through the rule of the welfare scheme and we find that the bank should have asked the complainant to pay the residual amount in advance in lumpsum at the time of voluntarily retirement.  

            We have gone through the written argument filed by both parties.

            Sri Shubhankar Bhattacharya, ld. Advocate for the bank has strongly argued that the complainant took voluntary retirement on 31.12.10 and it was mandatory on the part of him to pay the residual amount.  At page -6 of the written argument we find it has been mentioned that the complainant was not asked by the bank to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum at the time of his voluntary retirement on 31.12.10.  At page – 2 of the written argument we find that the complainant expressed his desire to deposit the residual amount of welfare fund component of the scheme.  Ld. Advocate for the bank has argued that the complainant was duly informed about his liability to pay the said amount.  It has been strongly argued that it is the duty of the member to contribute to welfare accounts and an omission to deposit the contribution would render the amount irregular and make the families ineligible for the benefits of the scheme.  Contributions amount is deducted from the salaries of the employee.  It has been further argued that the complainant has failed to pay the contribution in lumpsum. 

            From the side of the complainant it has been argued that it is a clear case of deficiency in service which the complainant should be compensated. 

            In order to counter that point Sri Bhattacharya has argued that it is the deficiency in service of the complainant and not the OP regarding contribution to the scheme. 

            We have meticulously gone through the affidavits of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 along with annexed documents.  PW-1, complainant says that he was debarred from the all facilities of the welfare scheme.   He has cited the identical case of the Jayanta Kumer Saha attached to Tarakeswar Branch of State Bank of India who also voluntarily retired from bank service.

            S.K. Basu appeared as PW-2 and filed affidavit he corroborated the statement of the PW-1.

            Gajendra Lal Ghosh, PW-3 who also corroborated the statement of PW-1.  Samir Majumder, PW-4 submitted the case of the complainant, as PW-1.  Sri Bhattacharya has submitted that annexure 12, the letter dtd. 08.09.2012 mentions responsibility of the complainant to make contribution of the welfare fund.  Perused the annexure – N, we find that the complainant was directed to show his passbook or any other documents in support of proof of his depositing the required contribution.

            Our attention was drawn to clause IV of Sections 3 of SBI Employees’ Mutual Welfare Scheme to change in the periodicity of depositing monthly welfare fund contributions by members.  Let us quote, 

            “The members of the scheme will continue to be responsible for taking contribution to their welfare fund accounts.  Any omission in depositing the contributions will render their accounts irregular and make them/their families ineligible for benefits of the scheme.  They must therefore, ensure that contributions are deducted from their salary.”

            Now the question is whether the complainant discharged his responsibility regarding contribution or not.  On 17.10.11 the complainant drew the attention of Assistant General Manager Administration SBI, Bidhannagar Zonal office with answer showing his deduction of amount in the fund till the date of his retirement.  The FAX message dtd. 23.07.12 and the Chief Manager HR go to show that Rs. 11,200/- was recovered from Bijan Kumar Sarkar.  Bijan Kumar Sarkar also wrote to Assistant Manager, HR Department on 11.08.12 soliciting instructions regarding the subscription.  The letter dtd. 07.09.12 addressed the Chief General Manager by the complainant requesting to regularize the amount in recovery in subscription up to voluntary retirement age for 42 months.  The salaries bills are not drawn by the employees concerned.  The accountants or person-in-charge draws the salary bills.  Hence, there was no fault on the part of the complainant to discharge his responsibility regarding contribution of the fund.  He wrote time and again for regularizing the Employees’ Mutual Welfare Scheme Subscription.  ‘Annexure – A to U’ go to show that the right of the complainant in the Employees’ Mutual Welfare Scheme.  He retired on 31.12.10 since the date of his retirement he drew the attention of the authority for making his contribution after retirement.  So duty on his part was duly performed.  Although ld. Advocate Sri Bhattacharya has opposed reliefs of annexure U.  From the judgment of the Hon'ble State Commission, we find that the principles laid down by the State Bank of India in SC case No. 272/A/05 dtd. 25.09.06 is applicable in the present case.  We hold that there is deficiency in service in terms of Section II(I)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, so the complainant is entitled to get all the benefits of welfare scheme and the facilities of the retired employees. 

Hence,

Ordered,

That, the case CC/12/93 be and the same is allowed on contest with the observation that the State Bank of India shall provide all facilities of that welfare scheme after deducting the due from the complainant.  The complainant is also entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for his mental agony and harassment along with litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-.  The State Bank of India shall regularize and provide relief to the complainant within 2 (two) months from this date, in default, the complainant will be at liberty to put the decree into execution. 

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.