BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                              :         PRESIDENT

SMT. SATHI. R                                  :         MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                           :         MEMBER

                               C.C.No : 148/2011          filed on 03/05/2011

                                   Dated: 31..10..2013

Complainant:

Janardhana Iyer, T.C.22/747(2) ABHRA, C.4, Attukal, Manacadu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 9.

                         (By Adv. V. Muraleedharan Pillai)

Opposite parties:

1. The Manager, Canara Bank, Manacaud Branch, Thiruvananthapuram 9.
2. The Manager, Link Branch, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Spencer Junction, Thiruvananthapuram - 33.

               (By Adv. S. Reena)

This O.P having been heard on 15..10..2013, the Forum on 31..10..2013 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, MEMBER:

         The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant was a BSNL employee, who retired from service on 31/10/2010, that he got his pension payment order through Canara Bank, Manacaud Branch on 12/12/2010, that complainant submitted the pension payment order on 13/12/2010, that the bank authorities credited his pension in his account only on 02/01/2011, arbitrarily reducing the DA from 39% to 34%, that when the complainant complained the opposite party Canara Bank credited the balance DA in January 2011, that the DA for the month of January was 43.2% but the complainant was given only 39% when complained the balance  4.2% was credited in his account in March 2011 only, that thereafter the complainant submitted a cheque for Rs. 1719/-  for discounting and paid the discounting charge also, but opposite party did not credit the amount in proper time but only on 05/04/2011, that later, on  15/03/2012 complainant produced a cheque of LIC for Rs. 5420/- for discounting in his account, but the same was credited only on 16/04/2011, though complainant filed a complaint to the 2^nd opposite party, Manager, Link Branch, Canara Bank, there was no response from him, that there is negligence and latches and unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st opposite party, Canara Bank, Manacaud Branch. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with cost.

         2.Opposite parties, on being served, entered appearance and filed their version contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that complaint is filed by the complainant with the ulterior motive of unnecessarily harassing and making inconvenience in the valuable time of the opposite parties and is filed due to the personal grudge towards the bank authorities for the reason that they are not answering the silly questions of the complainant during the peak time of transactions, that the allegations raised by the complainant is against the real facts, that actually his pension was credited in his account on 02/01/2011 and complainant had withdrawn the said amount, that the BSNL employees are receiving industrial DA, that on the pension due date, only the previous months DA was crediting in the respective accounts, the increase in DA is crediting in the account only after receiving the orders from the BSNL authorities to the bank authorities, that his pension was also credited on 31/01/2011 on receiving the order and DA arrears of Rs. 1,410/- was also credited on 03/02/2011 on receiving the order, that the cheque of Rs.1719/- of SBT, Thiruvananthapuram submitted by the complainant was credited in his account on 31/3/2011 immediately after the receipt of cheque, that there was no delay on the part of the opposite parties in crediting cheque amount in due time, that opposite parties received  the LIC cheque for Rs. 5,420/- on 14/04/2011 and was credited the amount in his account on 16/4/2011, that there was no negligence or delay or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite partis. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         3.The points that arise for consideration are:

         (i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

         (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for?

            In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P12. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 & D2.

         4.Points (i) & (ii):  The main allegation levelled against the opposite parties herein is that the Bank authorities purposely and intentionally retained his pension without crediting the same in his account in time and arbitrarily reduced the DA and delayed in crediting the same in his account. Complainant has led evidence by way of proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P12. Ext. P1 is the copy of the industrial DA case dated 26/10/2010 addressed to the 1^st opposite party bank by the Controller of Communication Accounts, Kerala. The said Ext. P1 discloses the details of pension payment. Ext. P2 is the copy of the pension payment order dated 26/10/2010 issued by the Government of India. Ext.P3 is the copy of the letter addressed to 1^st opposite party by the complainant dated 30/12/2010 alleging the lapses and negligence on the part of the bank in crediting the amount in his account. Ext. P4 is the copy of the account details of Janardhana Iyer with Canara Bank, Puthenchanthai branch(transferred to Manacaud Branch). Ext. P5 is the copy of the letter sent by complainant to the Controller of Communication Accounts requesting the latter to issue necessary instructions to give the arrears with interest. Ext. P6 is the copy of the letter from Janardhana Iyer to 1^st opposite party bank alleging non-crediting of IDA arrears for the  month of January 2011. Ext. P7 is the copy of the letter dated 14/03/2011 issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant stating that the IDA arrears has been credited to his account today. Ext. P8 is the counterfoil dated 30/03/2011 of Canara Bank. Ext. P9 is the common pay-in-slip of Canara Bank dated 12/04/2011. Ext. P10 is the copy of the account details of Janardhana Iyer. Ext. P11 is the copy of the letter dated 20/10/2011 issued by the complainant to 1^st opposite party. Ext. P12 is the copy of the letter dated 08/11/2011 issued by Canara Bank to Janardhana Iyer regarding the information sought under RTI Act 2005. Opposite party has led evidence by way of proof affidavit and Exts. D1 & D2. Ext. D1 is the copy of the statement  showing loans availed by Mr. Janardhana Iyer (Gold loans & guarantor to Housing Loan in the name of his wife), Mrs. Jayalakshmi (wife) (Can budget loan, Housing Loans & Gold loan) and Miss Kavitha (daughter) (Gold loan). Ext. D2 is the copy of the statement of account with respect to account No.0822101028941 statement of account is for the period from 01/12/2010 to 21/06/2011. On going  through the statement of account furnished by the opposite parties it is seen that his pension was credited in his account on 31/12/2010 and he had withdrawn the amounts on 01/01/2011. Further it is seen as per Ext. P2 that his DA arrears credited in his account on 03/02/2011. Further Ext. D2 discloses the fact that the cheque for Rs. 1,619/- was credited on 31/03/2011 and purchase charge taken is only Rs. 3/-. Simultaneously Rs. 5,420/- was credited on 16/04/2011, the purchase interest taken is only Rs. 7.68. On going through the statement of account for the period from 01/12/2010 to 21/06/2011 it has come in evidence that opposite party has credited various amounts in complainant’s account within reasonable time. It has been mentioned in his affidavit of the opposite party that the cheque amount was actually credited in his account on 31/03/2011, but the statement of the complainant that it was credited on 05/04/2011 is absolutely false. Further with regard to the LIC cheque of Rs. 5,420/- opposite party has averred in the affidavit that they received the said cheque on 12/04/2011 after business hours (3.30 PM), 13/04/2011 was a holiday for Kerala Assembly election and 14/04/2011 is bank holiday due to Dr. B.R Ambedkar  birthday and 15/04/2011 is also holiday due to Vishu. Therefore on the next working day, ie on 16/04/2011, the cheque was credited in his account without any delay after charging Rs. 7.68. Complainant failed to establish that there was negligence or lapses or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in connection with the aforementioned transactions. Ext. D1 also shows that the bank authorities granted several gold loans to complainant, his wife and daughter and his wife also availed a housing loan. According to opposite parties, all the loans were sanctioned to him and his wife and daughter due to the goods service of the opposite parties. From the available evidence on record we are convinced that opposite parties have provided service within reasonable time. In view of the above there is nothing on record to attribute any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant failed to establish his case on merits and hence complaint deserves to be dismissed.  

         In the result, complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as costs.

         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of October 2013.

Sd/-G. SIVAPRASAD   :         PRESIDENT

Sd/-R. SATHI                  :         MEMBER

Ad.                                Sd/- LIJU B. NAIR :         MEMBER

C.C.No: 148/2011

APPENDIX

I.Complainant’s documents:

P1      :         Copy of the industrial DA case dated 

26/10/2010addressed to the 1^st opposite party bank by the Controller  of communication Accounts, Kerala.

P2      :         Copy of pension payment order dated 26/10/2010 issued

          by the Government of India

P3      :         Copy of the letter addressed to 1^st opposite party by the

          complainant dated 30/12/2010

P4      :         Copy of the account details of Janardhana Iyer with

          Canara Bank, Puthenchanthai branch

          P5      :         Copy of the letter sent by complainant to the Controller

                              of Communication Accounts

          P6      :         Copy of the letter from Janardhana Iyer to 1^st opposite

 party bank

P7      :         Copy of the letter dated 14/03/2011 issued by 1^st

                    opposite party to the complainant

P8      :         Counterfoil dated 30/03/2011 of Canara Bank

P9      :         Common pay-in-slip of Canara Bank dated 12/04/2011

P10   :         Copy of account details of Janardhana Iyer

P11   :         Copy of the letter dated 20/10/2011 issued by the

 complainant to 1^st opposite party

          P12   :         Copy of the letter dated 08/11/2011 issued by Canara

 Bank to Janardhana Iyer

II.Complainant’s witness        :         N I L

III.Opposite parties’ documents:

          D1     :         Copy of statement showing loans availed by Janardhana

                              Iyer, Jyalakshmi and Kavitha

          D2     :        Copy of the statement of account with respect to account

                              No.0822101028941

IV. Opposite parties’ witness :         N I L

                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

PRESIDENT