BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday the 18th day of April, 2011
C.C.No 142/10
Between:
J.Venkataramaiah, S/o. J.V.Rangaiah,
15-126/S, Saibabapet, Nandikotkur-518 401.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Sub Treasury Officer,
S.T.O. Office, Taluka Office Compound, Atmakur, Kurnool District-510 842.
2. The Deputy Director,District Treasury Office,
Collectorate Compound,Kurnool-518 401.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri A.Siva Ramaiah, Advocate for complainant, and Smt. D.S.Saileela, Government Pleader for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member)
C.C. No. 142/10
1. Alleging deficiency of service, this complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay :-
- Rs.5,000/- towards expenses incurred with interest;
- Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony;
- And cost of the case.
2. Briefly the complainant version is that, the complainant Sri J.Venkatramaiah is a pensioner, residing at Nandikotkur. He was drawing pension form SB Account No.5786 of Andhra Bank, Pamulapadu. S.T.O Atmakur and Deputy Director – District Treasury Office, Kurnool are opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 respectively. The pension sanctioning authority was opposite party No.1. The complainant submitted an application on 01-12-2007 to opposite party No.1 for the transfer of his P.P.O to STO, Nandikotkur. In the same month of December 2007, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and came to know that his pension papers were not transferred for the reason that he did not submit his life certificate though it was sent already through Andhra Bank, Pamulapadu along with no due certificate. On 11-01-2008 opposite party No.1addressed a letter forwarding the PPO of the complainant to opposite party No.2 and a copy of it was handed over to the complainant. After knowing that his pension papers were not received at opposite party No.2 office, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 to find out the status of his file. To the surprise of the complainant, opposite party No.1 did not send them to opposite party No.2. Moreover opposite party No.1 answered the complainant that he intended to send them in the next financial year. With great persuasion, the complainant managed opposite party No.1 to draft another letter to opposite party No.2 on 18-03-2008. No action was taken in the opposite party No.2 office for 2 months though received the PPO transfer papers of the complainant. The complainant met opposite party No.2 on 28-05-2008 along with office bearers of service organisation and submitted a representation. Opposite party No.2 initiated action, got pension papers transferred to STO Nandikotkur and the complainant was issued a cheque dated 16-06-2008 for Rs.30,192/-. The callous and indifferent attitude of opposite parties made the complainant to run after the offices, suffer financially and mentally for six months. This amounts deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and therefore the complainant is entitled to receive compensation as claimed by him under different hands.
3. The complainant filed sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.A1 to A7 in support of his case.
4. In pursuance of the notice of this Forum, the opposite parties submitted their written versions denying their liability to the complainant’s claim. The opposite parties agreed that the complainant was drawing pension from STO Atmakur through S.B. Account No.5786 Andhra Bank Pamulapadu, submitted a representation on 01-12-2007 for the transfer of PPO to STO Nandikotkur. According to opposite parties in January 2008 opposite party No.1 wrote a letter to opposite party No.2 for the transfer of PPO, but it was not finalized due to same administrative reasons. However the pension was regularly paid for December 2007 to February 2008 and the complainant was receiving the amount with out any delay. Opposite party No.1 also avered that Banks are providing ATM facility to withdraw amounts any where in India. Another letter dated 18-03-2008 of opposite party No.1 was received in opposite party No.2 office on 23-03-2008 and the PPO of the complainant was transferred to STO Nandikotkur by opposite party No.2 through his letter No.B2/2029/2008, dated 24-04-2008. The opposite parties stated that the complainant got sanctioned his pension on 07-06-2008 for the months from March 2008 to May 2008 along with D.A. arrears after meeting STO Nandikotkur on 06-06-2008 and submitting life certificate. Hence the delay in payment of pension is administrative and not intentional. Therefore opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the case.
5. Opposite parties filed sworn affidavits and documents marked as Ex.B1 and B2 to support this case.
6. Both sides filed their written arguments and submitted Oral Arguments.
7. Hence the points for consideration are:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief.
8. Points 1 and 2: - Ex.A1 the letter dated 01-12-2007 of the complainant requesting opposite party No.1 to transfer his PPO from opposite party No.1 office to STO Nandikotkur. Ex.A2 letter dated 19-11-2007 of Andhra Bank, Pamulapadu forwarding life certificate of the complainant to opposite party No.1. Ex.A3, letter dated 11-01-2008 of opposite party No.1, Ex.A4 letter dated 18-03-2008 of opposite party No.1. Both Ex.A3 and A4 are letters forwarding the application of complainant to opposite party No.2. Ex.B1 letter dated 15-02-2008 of opposite party No.1 addressed to opposite party No.2 for filing the vacant posts. From Ex.A1 to A4 it is evident that opposite party No.1 took more than three and half months to forward the PPO of the complainant to opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 stated that the reason for the delay as administrative and filed Ex.B1. Ex.A3 though prepared and handed over a copy of it to the complainant was not sent to opposite party No.2, gives an opinion that the delay is intentional. The opposite party No.1 suggested that the pension amounts remitted in Andhra Bank, Pamulapadu can be withdrawn by the complainant form any where in India by using ATM Card. But this facility was not used by the complainant because he was not aware of it. Ex.A5 the bank statement shows no with drawel of pension during that period. Opposite party No.2 stated that he received the letter from opposite party No.1 on 23-03-2008, and issued instructions to STO Nandikotkur. Vide letter No.B3/2029/2008 dated 24-04-2008. Ex.A7. The representation of the complainant, submitted to opposite party No.2 along with the office bearers of service organization. Opposite party No.2 initiated action on Ex.A4 only after receiving Ex.A7. The cheque for arrears pension was issued by STO Nandikotkur and credited into the complainant’s Bank Account on 16-06-2008. It took almost three months to pay the pension to the complainant from the date of receipt of Ex.A4 to the date of credit of pension amount in the bank. Totally the complainant was made to suffer for more than six months from the date of his application to get his PPO transferred to the place of his request. The reasons given by the opposite parties for the delay are not satisfactory. The complainant also filed a judgment reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 787 in which it was ordered that compensation for oppression suffered by the consumer can be awarded and recovered from the erring official. From what is stated above the forum holds that the complainant has established all facts entitling him to receive compensation under different heads as claimed by him.
9. Point No.3:- The claim of the complainant Rs.5,000/- towards expenditure to run after officer is excessive. Rs.2,000/- is reasonable and it is allowed. Rs.10,000/- is claimed as compensation for mental agony. The opposite parties made the complainant to suffer for more than six months to get his work done. Only Rs.5,000/- is allowed as compensation for mental agony.
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.2,000/- towards expenditure, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- as cost of the case. Time for the compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 18th day of April, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of letter dated 01-12-2007 of complainant to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of letter dated 19-11-2007 of Andhra Bank to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of letter dated 11-01-2008 of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of letter dated 18-03-2008 of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Pension calculation done by S.T.O. Nandikotkur, dated 07-06-2008.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of Transaction of State Bank of India, Nandikotkur, period from 01-05-2008 to 30-09-2008.
Ex.A7 Photo copy letter dated 28-05-2008 of complainant to opposite party No.2.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of letter dated 15-02-2008 of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of Transaction of Andhra Bank, Pamulapadu, for the month of 01-12-2007 to 01-02- 2008.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
