Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/258/2020

Dharamvir - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

15 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Dharamvir, aged 50 years son of Sh. Ratu Ram, resident of House No.2479, Sector 39-C, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant

Versus

The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Limited, Punjab Civil Secretariat Branch, Sector 1, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager/Authorised Officer.

…. Opposite Party

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that on 10.3.2017, OP bank advanced OD limit of the ₹1,00,000/- to him against his saving bank account and the same was valid till 31.3.2020 and he never remained defaulter.  On 7.3.2020, complainant cleared the OD limit and nothing was due against him. 

              On 25.4.2019, complainant sent a legal notice to the OP as it had withheld the OD limit facility without intimating him. The complainant also sent letter dated 3.8.2019 to the OP to withdraw the letter written to his employer for deduction from retirement benefits. OP bank sent legal notice dated 22.2.2020 with a view to pressurize the complainant and also debited ₹761/- from his account towards legal notice charges.  The complainant sent request under RTI to supply the documents regarding contract of OD limit but the OP failed to supply the same.  It is alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OP, the concerned department of the complainant withheld his pension file for a long time and did not release the pensionary benefits, gratuity till date which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.  Hence, the present consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount deducted alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

2.        In its written version OP admitted that it had extended the overdraft facility to the complainant against saving bank account in which he was receiving his monthly salary.  However, it is averred that the overdraft facility is granted only for one financial year and the same is renewed on application of the consumer that too after going through the previous record. It is averred that in the application for availing overdraft facility, date of retirement of the complainant was mentioned as 31.3.2028 but on verification it transpired that he had applied for VRS on 28.2.2019 and immediately on 22.4.2019 a letter was written to the complainant’s employer to deduct the dues of overdraft limit from his retiral dues. When the complainant came to know that the OP had written a letter to his employer, he immediately sent a legal notice to the OP. It is also admitted that the complainant cleared his overdraft facility on 7.3.2020 after issuance of legal notice dated 22.2.2019 by the OP.  The amount of ₹761/- was deducted from the complainant’s account towards payment of legal expenses by the OP bank to the advocate on its panel. The remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.        The complainant chose not to file the rejoinder.
4.        The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
5.        We have heard the complainant in person, learned Counsel for the OP and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
6.        The main issue involved in the present consumer complaint is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted by the OP or not?

              In order to find out answer to this question, the following facts and circumstances are necessary to be discussed.

7.        It is observed from the record that the complainant had availed Over Draft (OD) facility from the OP/bank for ₹1,00,000/- for the year 2018-19 and thereafter 2019-20.  Thus, the complainant had time period till 31.3.2020 to clear his OD limit as the same was renewed in April 2019. 
8.        The OP has alleged that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands as in the application for renewal, he had mentioned his retirement date as 31.3.2028 whereas he took VRS on 28.2.2019 and the OP had issued legal notice to the employer of the complainant in order to safeguard the overdraft limit of ₹1,00,000/- availed by the complainant from the OP bank in view of his voluntary retirement and further the OP had debited ₹761/- from the complainant’s saving bank account on account of legal notice served upon him. 
9.        The complainant by referring to letter dated 30.7.2019 (Annexure C-3) issued by the General Administration Department (Estt.1 Branch), Punjab Civil Secretariat as per which  it was ordered to make payment of ₹67,228/- to the bank from his pensionary benefits, has contended that as per law pension benefits cannot be attached or held for an type of recovery.  This protection has been granted under Section 60 of the CPC and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 
10.        This point has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 4.11.2008 titled as Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. PNB & Anr., Civil Appeal No.6440-41 of 2008 and also by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Sathiyabama & Ors. Vs. M. Palanisamy & Ors. on 20.10.2003.  Further, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case titled as A. Muthuiruvakkal Vs. State Bank of India & Ors., W.P (MD) 17838 of 2015 and M.P(MD) No.1 of 2015 decided on 17.11.2015 held that pension and gratuity cannot be attached. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below for ready reference :-

“1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 13.08.2015 whereby, her Saving Bank Account No.11319810470 dealing only in respect of her pension amount was put on hold for the purpose of recovery of an outstanding of loan amount.

3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the present impugned order passed is in effect attaching the pension amount of the petitioner lying in S.B.Account No.11319810470 by putting such an account on hold, which is impermissible in law, as pension amount cannot be attached or recovered for the purpose of recovery of any outstanding amount payable by the petitioner. In support of such contention, the learned Counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 1 SCC 376, .

6. It is well settled that attachment of pension amount cannot be made for realization of any outstanding. In this aspect, the above decision of the Apex Court relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner can be usefully quoted, wherein, in paragraph No.33, the Supreme Court has observed that the pension and gratuity amount should not attached under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

11.        Now coming to the issue in hand, it is not disputed that the OD limit was valid till 31.3.2020. The complainant had cleared the outstanding amount of OD limit on 6.3.2020 i.e. before 31.3.2020 and within the time period which was allowed to him by law.  The OP at its own levied charges of legal notice served by their panel advocate on the complainant and deducted the same from the account of the complainant, without his consent and knowledge, and the said act not only amounts to deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on its part which caused harassment to the complainant.
12.        In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed to refund the amount of ₹761/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of deduction till the date of actual realization. OP shall also pay lump sum compensation of ₹5,000/- to the complainant for the harassment caused to him.
13.        This order be complied with by the OP within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
14.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
15.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.