BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BAGALKOT

                                                                                                                                         Date of Admission   : 23-08-2016

                                Date of Order          : 19-11-2016

                              Consumer Complaint No: 145/2016

PRESENT

1. Smt K.Sharada  B.A.L.L.B. (Spl)                          : President
2. Smt Sumangala Hadli   B.A.(Music)                     : Lady Member
3. Shri Shravanakumar. D. Kadi M.Com. L.L.B.(Spl : Member

           COMPLAINANT

1. Shri Manjunath S/o Dattatraya Hegde

    Age: 67 Years, Occ: Retd Manager of Syndicate Bank,

    R/o Suhas,6^th Cross, Mission Compound,

    Udupi-576101

                                                      (By In-person)

                     V/s

1) The Senior Branch Manager,

    Syndicate Bank, Umarameshwar Chowk

    Jamkhandi-587301

                                                     (Exparte)

Speaking through Shri Shravanakumar.D.Kadi, Member

           This Complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the opposite party (in short the Ops) to stop further deductions from pension, refund the amount of Rs 2, 05,053/-recovered in excess of Complainant actual liability of Rs 51,000/- with Interest @ 9% per annum, to pay Rs 1, 00, 000/- as compensation towards mental torture and also award cost.

          That the Complainant retired from his post as Manager of Syndicate Bank. Now his leading the life depending upon pension.  Syndicate Bank is a duly constituted public sector bank and is having a branch at Jamkhandi among many others across the country. That the Complainant had availed LDs (Loan on Deposits) on security of Complainant’s deposits to the LDs on the respective due dates of the deposits as under:-

That the bank had retained a total margin of Rs 1,81,000/- (13.24% of the deposit) for all the Deposits together while arranging the LDs. The bank is duty bound to adjust the deposits on maturity to the LDs and square up the LDs with the proceeds of the pledged deposits. The surplus after the adjustment would be kept in unclaimed deposits. The bank has failed to act as required in case of the above LDs on maturity of the pledged deposits, clearly establishing deficiency in its service. The bank not only did not agree to collect Rs 51000/- from the Complainant but went ahead to recover Rs 205053/- as on filing the complaint  from pension. The bank has been unauthorisedly recovering Rs 10000/- from Complainant Pension every month since March 2015.On 13-02-2015 the bank has recovered Rs 5000/- from Complainant pension. A total amount of Rs 185000/- has been forcibly taken away from Complainant pension by the bank up to 02-08-2016. The total amount the bank has recovered from the Complainant pension is Rs 256053/-against liability of complainant of Rs 51000/-and Bank’s own stated demand of Rs 232000/- .The bank has wrongly and ruthlessly recovered Rs 205053/-in excess of Complainant actual liability .Hence the bank’s negligence and unauthorized action have resulted in pecuniary loss and mental torture to the Complainant. Then Complainant send official notice to Opponent there is no response from the bank to the legal notice also. Hence the Complainant prays for direct to Opponent to stop further deductions from pension, refund the amount of Rs 2, 05,053/-recovered in excess of Complainant actual liability of Rs 51,000/- with Interest @ 9% per annum, to pay Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental torture and also award cost.

           2.  After receipt of the notice, the Opponent did not appear either in- person or by counsel inspite of giving sufficient time. Hence were placed exparte.

        3.  That the Complainant has filed affidavit in support of his case     documents produced marked as per Annexure

       4.   That the Complainant has filed written argument and argued the matter orally. Heard the argument. Now the following points for our consideration in deciding the case are;

i) Whether the Op has rendered deficiency in service to the complainant?

ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as is sought for?

iii) What Order?

        5.  Our findings to these points are as hereunder:

i) Affirmative,

ii) Partly Affirmative,

iii) As per final order

REASONS:-

             6. POINT NO 1:- In order to avoid repetition of the facts and reasons and also to save time, we take up the complaint for passing order as follows:-

          That the Complainant retired from his post as Manager of Syndicate Bank. Now his leading the life depending upon pension. 

          That the Complainant had availed LDs (Loan on Deposits) on security of Complainant’s deposits to the LDs on the respective due dates of the deposits as shown in the brief facts of the complaint. The bank has been unauthorized recovering Rs 10000/- from Complainant Pension every month since March 2015.On 13-02-2015 the bank has recovered Rs 5000/- from Complainant pension. A total amount of Rs 185000/- has been forcibly taken away from Complainant pension by the bank up to 02-11-2016. The total amount the bank has recovered from the Complainant pension is Rs 276053/-against liability of complainant of Rs 51000/-and Bank’s own stated demand of Rs 232000/- .The bank has wrongly and ruthlessly recovered Rs.2,25,053/- in excess of Complainant actual liability.

        Under section 11 of pension act of 1871 pension is immune from any attachment. It is not subject to any recovery irrespective of the fact whether the recovery is genuine or not. Therefore the bank’s action of recovering the dues from Complainant pension is against the rule of law and it is illegal.

         That the Complainant  mention some citations like Muthuiruvakkal V/s State Bank of India, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has held that “monthly pension amount cannot be attached by a bank just because the pensioner had defaulted repayment of a loan availed from them”. In the case of Jitendra Kumar Srivastava V/s The state of Bihar the supreme court has held that “Pension is in the nature of property and this right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300 of the Constitution of India”.

           Then Complainant sends legal notice to Opponent about this regard but, no proper steps were taken by Opponent. Opponent there is no response from the bank to the legal notice also. That the Complainant is a retired person of Bank Manager he knows very well regarding calculation of interest and other things of loan on Deposits. Hence Complainant himself exports in this case.

                                         As per Exhibit C-1 to C-3 and Xerox copy of letter correspondence shows total amount of Rs 225053/- excess recovery through Complainant Pension difference amount is to be credited in the name of the complainant. But till today the Op No 1 not paid the difference amount nor replied to the same. Hence this is none other than deficiency in service rendered by the Opponent and we answer to point No 1 in affirmative.

                   7.  POINT No2:- Once the deficiency in service is provide, the next is how much compensation complainant is entitled for? It is admitted by Opponent due to non appearance of this forum and non filing of the written version by the Opponent  itself is constructive admission of every allegation of fact made in the Complaint under Order VIII Rule 5 of C.P.C. and could be taken to has been admitted by the Opponent. That the Opponent has to stop further deductions from pension, refund the amount of Rs 2,25,053/-recovered in excess amount after deduction of Complainant actual liability of Rs 51,000/- with Interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing the Complaint i.e,23-08-2016, and to pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation towards mental torture including  cost. If Opponent has not to pay the excess amount till date after the judgment remaining Monthly deduction amount is also Pay to Complainant to excess amount recover from the opponent Hence, we answer Point No 2 partly in the affirmative

             8.  POINT NO3:- In view of our findings to point No 1 and 2 we proceed to pass the following. . .

 Complainant’s Complaint is allowed in part as follows:-

1. Opponent has to stop further deductions from pension,

2. Opponent has to pay refund the  amount of Rs.2,25,053/-(Two lakh twenty five thousand fifty three only) recovered in excess amount after deduction of Complainant actual liability of Rs 51,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 23-08-2016 till the date of realization.

3.  Opponent has to pay an amount of Rs 10,000/-(Ten thousand only) towards mental agony and cost of the litigation caused to the complainant.

4. Opponent has to comply this order within One month from the date of receipts of this order, failure which the amount carries interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from. 23-08-2016 till the date of realization.

5. Free copy of this order shall be sent to the parties immediately.

              (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 19^th day of November, 2016)

                         ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:-

2. Shri Manjunath S/o Dattatraya Hegde

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant

1. ExC1:- Complainant bank statement from 01-01-2015 to 19-08-2016
2. Ex C2:- Letter from opponent to Complainant dated 18-11-2014
3. Ex C3:-  Legal Notice to Opponent
4.  Xerox copy of pass book
5. Total 6 Xerox copy of application for advance
6. Xerox copy of letter of request for additional loan
7. Total 8 Xerox copy of cash Certificate
8. Xerox copy of Bank Statement of Complainant
9. Xerox Copy of Statement of account after recalculation of interest
10. Xerox copy of letter to opponent from the Complainant dated 26-05-2016
11. Copy of Mail messages
12.  Xerox copy of letter to opponent from the Complainant dated 30-01-2016
13.  Xerox copy of letter to opponent from the Complainant dated 16-11-2015
14. Xerox copy of letter to opponent from the Complainant dated 28-04- 2015
15.  Xerox copy of letter to opponent from the Complainant dated 19-03-2015
16. Xerox copy of letter from opponent to Complainant dated 10-03-2015
17. Xerox copy of letter to opponent from the Complainant dated 07-03- 2015
18. Xerox copy of letter from Opponent to Complainant dated 24-02-2015
19. Xerox copy of letter to opponent from the Complainant dated 24-12-2014
20. Xerox copy of letter to opponent from the Complainant dated 06-12-2014
21. Xerox copy of letter from Opponent to Complainant dated 18-11-2014
22. Xerox copy of letter to opponent from the Complainant dated 03-11-2014
23. Xerox copy of Letter from Opponent to Complainant dated 17-10-2014
24. Xerox copy of Annexure I
25. Xerox copy of letter to opponent from the Complainant dated 24-05-2014
26. Xerox copy of Letter from opponent  to the Complainant dated 21-05-2014