Haryana

Karnal

351/2011

Suresh Pal Singh S/o Ved Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

D.P. Raman

22 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint No.351 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt.13.06.2011

                                                               Date of decision: 29.07.2015

 

Suresh Pal Singh son of Sh.Ved Singh r/o House No.978, Sector – 6, Karnal.

                                                                   ………….Complainant.

 

                                                          Versus

Manager, Union Bank of India, SCF- 95, Main Market, Sector – 6, Karnal.

.

                                                                   ………..Opposite Party.

 

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present        Sh.D.P.Raman Advocate for the complainant.

                   Ms.Rashmi Sharma, Manager, for the OP.

ORDER:                    

 

                     This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the allegations that complainant retired from the office of Director, Agriculture, Haryana, Sector 25, Panchkula on 30.06.2006.  As per  PPO

 ( Pension Payment Order) No. 136508-S/HR,PEN-5/S-945/2006-07  dated 17.7.2006    his pension was fixed  Rs.7990/-. After deduction of commutation amount of Rs.3196/- per month  vide  separate PPO No. PEN-5/S-945/2006-07  Com No.234081/HR/146514-16 dated 17.7.2006, his payable pension was fixed Rs.4794. After recommendations of pay Commission, his pension was fixed to the tune of Rs.12159/- per month and commuted pension was increased to Rs.4863/- per month.  In lieu of the enhanced commuted pension, he was authorized to draw an amount of Rs. 1,67,454/-, vide separate PPO  No. PEN-5/Com No.287666/HR/S-945/2006-07/216551-53 dated 23.12.2010.  Office of Accountant General, Haryana, Chandigarh intimated him and Director, Agriculture Haryana  in that regard Opposite Party ( in short OP) was  also directed to pay enhanced commutation amount of Rs.1,67,454/-. OP received additional PPO from the office of A.G.Haryana on 16.1.2011.  It has further been averred that  the complainant came to know on 3.2.2011 that on 1-2-2011, OP credited in his account No.496102010008679 an amount of Rs.77436/- only, out of the amount of Rs.1,67,454/-, by making illegal deduction of Rs.90018/-.  On enquiry, he was told that  the amount of commutation/deduction was increased to Rs.4863/- from Rs.3196/-,  therefore, difference of Rs.1667/- per month was to be recovered from the enhanced amount of commutation from the date of retirement. The deduction of Rs.90018/- from the enhanced commutation amount of the complainant was totally illegal and malafide. Therefore, the complainant got served legal notice upon the OP, but to no effect. In this way, there was deficiency in services on the part of OP, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant apart from financial loss. The complainant has claimed Rs.90018/- alongwith interest @ Rs.24% per annum, Rs.40,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.                 Upon notice, the OP put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not come  with clean hands; that the complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his acts and conduct.

 

                    On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant received payment of Rs.1,34,612/- on 1.2.2011 and in this amount, payment of an amount of Rs.17,631/- as LTC expenses Rs. 13,268/- was the complainants pension and arrear of Rs.16,110/- were included. The amount of  Rs.87603/-  was the enhanced  commutation amount and the same was deposited alongwith the said amount in the account of the complainant. Thereafter, Rs.79851/- was deposited in the account of the complainant on  16.2.2011.  Thus, the enhanced commutation amount of Rs.1,67,454/-  was deposited in the account of the complainant on 1.2.2011 and this fact was explained to the complainant. It has been denied that amount of Rs.90018/- was illegally deducted from the   commutation amount of the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied.

 

3.                In the evidence of the complainant, he filed his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12.

 

4.                On the other hand, in the evidence of OP affidavit of Ms.Rashmi Sharma, Manager, Ex.O/1 has only been filed.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the complainant was  to get enhanced commutation amount of Rs.167454/- after revision of pay scales as per recommendations of report of Pay Commission.  The complainant has alleged that an amount of Rs.90018/- was illegally deducted by the OP bank from the enhanced commuted value of pension,  but the OP has asserted that no such amount was illegally deducted from the enhanced commutation of the complainant, rather amount was deposited in his account properly.

 

7.                      The copy of  commutation  payment order bearing PPO No. 136508-S/HR Ex.C4  dated  23.12.2010 shows that on 23.12.2010  the complainant was ordered to be paid an amount of Rs.1,67,454/- for payment of  commuted  value  of pension. Basic pension was fixed Rs.12159/-, revised pension as Rs.7396/-   and commuted  portion of pension as Rs.4863/-.  It was clarified  that commuted portion of pension of Rs.4863/- was  to be restored on  completion of 15 years from the date of retirement or fifteen years from the actual receipt of commuted  value, whichever is later.  The copy of  the enhanced commutation payment order dated 17.7.2006, Ex.C3, shows that basic pension of the complainant was  initially fixed at Rs.7990/- out of which Rs.4794/-  was payable pension and Rs.3196/- as  commuted pension. Thus, it is emphatically clear that after enhancement of the basic pension of the complainant from Rs.7990/- to Rs.12149/- , the commuted   pension was also increased from 3196/- to Rs.4863/-. Therefore,  difference in the commuted pension after enhancement of the basic pension comes to Rs.  4863/- minus Rs.3196/- = Rs.1667/-. As per PPO this difference can be recovered from pension of the complainant within fifteen years from the date of retirement or fifteen years from the actual receipt of the commuted value, whichever is later.  The PPO regarding enhanced pension and enhanced  commutation payment order  was issued on 23.12.2010. Therefore, the difference of Rs.1667/- per month of the   commuted  pension could be  recovered from the  basic pension of the complainant within fifteen years from the date of payment of  enhanced commutation  amount of Rs.1,67,454/-, because that was the later date and not from the date of his retirement.

 

8.                During course of arguments,  Sh.B.B.Wadhwa, who was manager of the  - bank at the relevant time told that difference of Rs.1667/- per month was deducted from the date of retirement of the complainant from the enhanced  commutation amount of Rs.167454/-. In this way, it is established that OP bank had not credited in the account of the complainant the entire enhanced  commutation amount of Rs.167454/-. Deduction of the amount of difference of commuted pension i.e. Rs.1667/- per month from the date of retirement of the complainant was not legally  justified in any manner because recovery could be effected only after payment of the enhanced commutation  amount to the complainant and no recovery could be  effected for the period prior to the date of payment. Thus, deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank is established.

 

 

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP bank to credit the amount which was deducted from the enhanced commutation amount of Rs.167454/-  in the account of the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of  deduction  till its credit. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2200/- for the legal fee and litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days  from  the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 29.07.2015                                                                     

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

                  

 

 

Present         Sh.D.P.Raman Advocate for the complainant.

                   Ms.Rashmi Sharma, Manager, for the OP.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 29.07.2015.

Announced
dated: 23.07.2015                                                                      

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

                  

Present         Sh.D.P.Raman Advocate for the complainant.

                   Ms.Rashmi Sharma, Manager, for the OP.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been  accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 29.07.2015                                                                     

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.