BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.93 of 2017
Date of Instt. 03.04.2017
Date of Decision: 24.01.2018
Kailash Chander Age 75 years S/o Dhanta Ram, ES 465, St. No.5, Abadpura Jalandhar Mob. No.9855489197.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. UCO Bank, Branch Bhargava Camp, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar Through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.
UCO Bank (Head Office), 10 BTM, Sarani, Kolkata (West Bengal) -700001.
..….…Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is a retired person as Inspector from Co-operative Societies of Punjab Government and getting pension through OP No.1. That the complainant is subscriber of SB/Pension A/c No.20289/PPO No.129299/PB with OP No.1. The complainant was retired in April 2000. The basic pension of the complainant is Rs.10,551/-. In September, 2015 the total pension of the complainant with 107% DA was Rs.22,341/- per month. From January, 2015, the Punjab Government gave 6% DA, which amount becomes to Rs.630/- per month. As per orders of Punjab Government, the balance of 8 months was to give with pension of August, 2015. The OP No.1 did not give the balance amount in time. At the time of disbursement of pension in October, 2015, the balance amount of pension for ten months became Rs.6330/-, but the OP No.1 gave Rs.6069/-. Intentionally and deliberately with malafide intention, the OP No.1 calculated less Rs.261/-, which tantamount to unfair trade practice.
2. That on 30.10.2015, the OP No.1 gave pension Rs.28,410/- instead of Rs.28,671/- to the complainant. The actual amount of pension was Rs.28,671/-, but the OP No.1 did not give this amount to the complainant. That intentionally with malafide intention, the OP No.1 gave less amount Rs.261/- to the complainant and in July 2016, the LTC which was allowed to give to retired pensioner by the Punjab Govt. from January, 2016 to June 2016, but the same was not given to the complainant despite so many requests and several visits made by the complainant to the OP No.1. That on 08.09.2016, the complainant sent an application to Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar requesting to take action against OP No.1 for grant of less paid amount of Rs.261/- and LTC and prior to that the complainant also submitted an application to Manager UCO Bank, but neither the D.C nor the Manager of UCO Bank take any action against the OPs, then the complainant also sent a letter to the Hon'ble Governor Reserve Bank of India as well as send a complaint to banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh and thereafter, on 08.12.2016, the RBI, Chandigarh intimated the complainant that the bank has stated that they have credited LTC as well as DA arrears into your account on 28.11.2016. The complainant spent Rs.450/- on postage for making correspondence to different authority and also caused a mental tension by the OPs to the complainant, which is clearly a negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and thus, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OPs be directed to pay Rs.450/- spent on registered posts/letters alongwith interest @ 24% on the delayed period disbursement of the aforesaid amount of arrears of the DA and LTC and further be directed to pay the cost of Rs.3300/- and compensation for mental tension and harassment, to the tune of Rs.95,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared and filed a written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint does not lie in the present form and even the present complaint is not filed as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. As per Section 2 of the Act and the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, in various cases, it is clear that the Government servant has been excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and as such, the instant complaint of the complainant is to be adjudicated only by the Civil Court and therefore, the instant complaint is dismissed and further submitted that the true facts are that the OP No.1 has received a mail from banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh in the month of November, 2016 and came to know the matter of the complainant and immediately the OP No.1 has take necessary action relating to the matter referred by Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh and disbursed the arrears in the account of the complainant. The OP have never received any request from the side of the complainant before November, 2016 to make the payment of any arrears as alleged in the complainant and there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is further averred that the complainant has not come with clean hands. On merits, the factum in regard to retirement of the complainant as well as getting pension from OP No.1, is not denied, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence.
5. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith some documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-4 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the complainant in person and the learned counsel for the OPs and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. In this complaint, the matter in issue is only that the OP has paid a less amount of the pension i.e. Rs.261/- per month and also not paid LTC from July, 2016, in order to get these benefits, the complainant has made stern efforts by sending a letter to different authorities i.e. DC, Jalandhar as well as to the Hon'ble Governor of RBI and Ombudsman, Chandigarh and after that corresponding, the complainant get the fruits i.e. he received the aforesaid benefits on 28.11.2016 as informed to the complainant by the RBI, vide letter dated 08.12.2016 that the said amount has been already credited in your account on 28.11.2016 and these factum have been also admitted by the OP in its written reply in Para No.3 of the Preliminary Objections that the amount claimed by the complainant is already disbursed in the account of the complainant in the month of November, 2016.
8. Now, we have to take into consideration the allegations took by the OP that the claim of the complainant does not cover under the 'Consumer Protection Act', rather it is to be decided by the Civil Court. But counsel for the OP is not able to explain in satisfactory way, how this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present claim of the complainant, as the complainant has been getting a pension from the bank through OP No.1 i.e. UCO Bank and UCO Bank is getting some incentive amount from the Government for further disbursement of the pension and LTC to the complainant and as such, the complainant is the beneficiary of the Government and therefore, he is a consumer and thus, the instant complaint is very much maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
9. So for the concern of main controversy between the parties, the same has been already fully satisfied as the less amount paid by the OP i.e. a sum of Rs.261/- in the pension as well as the amount of LTC have been already disbursed in the account of the complainant on 28.11.2016 as mentioned by the complainant himself in Para No.12 of the complaint. Now question remains only whether the complainant is entitled for the interest on the delayed payment, the answer is Yes and further, the complainant is also entitled for compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. So, accordingly we calculate the said entire amount i.e. interest, compensation and litigation and find it will be appropriate, if a lump sum amount of Rs.5000/- is to be given to the complainant as an interest, compensation and litigation cost, so accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5000/- as interest on the delayed payment, compensation and litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OPs will liable to pay interest thereon @ 9% from the date of filing complaint till realization. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
24.01.2018 Member President
