C.F. CASE No.                      :            CC/12/80

COMPLAINANT                  :           Ramesh Shaw,

                                    Kalimoy Ghatak Lane,

                                    Bhangrapara

                                    P.O. + P.S. Ranaghat,

                                    Dist. Nadia, PIN 741201

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTY / 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,

                                    Ranaghat Branch,

                                    Vivekananda Sarani,

                                    P.O. & Vill. Gangnapur, Nadia.

                                       3)      The Branch Manager,

                                    State Bank of India,

                                    Gangnapur Branch

                                    P.O. & Vill. Gangnapur, Nadia

                                    PIN 771233

                                       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 Chief Manager (HR)

                                    Personnel Section

                                    State Bank of India,

                                    Administrative Office,

                                    Bidhannagar,

C.I.T. Scheme No.VIIM,

1/16 V.I.P. Road, Kolkata –700054

                                       6)     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

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                         :  20^th January, 2014

:    J U D G M E N T    :

            This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by Ramesh Shaw, an ex-employee against six opposite parties belonging to State Bank of India.  The sum and substance of the case is as below:

            The complainant was posted as messenger of the State Bank of India at Gangnapur, Nadia and was transferred to Ranaghat in 2007 where he worked till retirement (31.10.10).  State Bank of India introduced a scheme of Employees’ Mutual Welfare Scheme to provide medical assistance and other benefits to the retired employees.   The complainant was the member of the said welfare scheme but the bank is not extending the benefit of the scheme to him or his family.  The bank has started deducting Rs. 5/- but the savings fund component was discontinued by the bank in the year 1993, instead an amount of Rs. 10/- (WFC) was regularly recovered from his salary.  As per provisions of the scheme the bank would refund the accumulated deposit of welfare fund component. But the said amount of welfare fund component was not returned by the bank to the complainant.  Letter was written to the Bank Manager but without any effect.  ‘Annexure – A, A-1 to Annexure-J‘ were filed to substantiate the case of the complainant.  The Chief Manager was also informed but no result is yielded.  The cause of action arose on 01.11.10.   The complainant has prayed for refund of welfare fund component amounting to Rs. 2990/- (299 months x Rs. 10) with 12 % interest per annum.  The complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

            Written statement was filed by the OP No. 1 to 6 on 04.04.13 denying the allegation of the complainant.   To put, in a nutshell, OPs pleadings are:-  The case is not maintainable as the allegation is false.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as he is not a member for nonpayment of premium for a long time.  In settlement of the retirement the matter was not highlighted by the complainant.  The complainant defaulted in payment of the premium and his membership was seized.  The complainant should have given the central administrative tribunal if he has any grievance.  The complainant is not consumer as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act. 

            POINTS FOR DECESION

1. Point No. 1:   Is the complainant a consumer?
2. Point No. 2:   Is the case maintainable?
3. Point No. 2:   What 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.

            We have meticulously gone through the documents filed by both parties in order to arrive at the truth.

Complainant has filed the following annexures:-  

1.  Annexure A shows the facilities for retired employees.
2. Annexure – A-1 is State Bank of India Employees’ Mutual Welfare Scheme.
3. Annexure –C is a letter of the State Bank of India dtd. 07.01.11
4. Annexure – D is a letter of the complainant dtd. 27.07.11
5. Annexure – E is a letter of the complainant dtd. 30.04.12
6. Annexure – F is letter of the complainant dtd. 14.08.12

A Judgment passed by this Forum in CC/12/80 has also filed by the complainant along with a case law of Kerala High Court reported in 2004 CTJ 317. 

Annexure – G dtd. 27.12.12, a letter addressed to the complainant clearly mentions the sum of Rs. 3,090/- has been credited to the account No. 31235576816 on 26.12.12.   This clearly gives to show that the contribution of the complainant so far made by the complainant in the welfare fund component has duly been repaid by the employer (Chief Manager).  Through the Affidavit evidence or document complaint could not establish that Rs. 2,990/- is still due to him from State Bank of India.

We have meticulously gone through the other annexures on the record and it is admitted position that under the State Bank of India employees mutual welfare scheme the complainant became the member and he received Rs. 3,090/- in his account regarding statement of the welfare fund component.  Thus, the plea of non-payment of the welfare fund component does not arise.  We have also gone through the affidavit evidence filed by Ramesh Shaw.

The bank has filed ‘annexure 1’ the sanctioned letter of pension dtd. 30.10.10 in favour of the complainant and ‘annexure –J’ the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund (PPG Pen 6266 dtd. 04.12.12).

            We have gone through AIR 2013 HP 34 wherein the person agreed was held not consumer under 1986 Act.  We have also gone through AIR 2013 SC 3060 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the appropriate Forum to settle the employees PF dispute would be State Administrative Tribunal or Civil Court and not the Consumer Forum. 

            However, relying upon the analogy of this Forum as reflected CC/10/40  judgment dtd. 23.12.10 in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the case is maintainable and the complainant Ramesh Saha is a consumer. 

            In view of ‘annexure – G’ and the receipt of the due amount Rs. 3,090/- as welfare fund component by the complainant we find no further claim by the complainant is maintainable.  All the issues are thus disposed of accordingly. 

Hence,

Ordered,

that the case, CC/12/80 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost and compensation.

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