ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant through GPA holder Sri BV Ranganath against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as OPs) under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service in not sanctioning the second family pension to the complainant and direct OPs to sanction the pentionery benefits from 07.10.2017 up-to-date and to pay the arrears of pension withheld by 3^rd OP along with interest @ 12% per annum and for compensation for Rs.10,00,000/- for rendering deficiency in service   and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant is the daughter of late BS Vasudevarao. The said Vaudeva Rao was workings with the Accountant General office and retired due to superannuation on 30.04.1980 as Senior Accounts officer and drawing the pension from OP-3. He died on 06.10.2017. Earlier to it, his wife Smt. BV Padma died on 05.03.2015. During the life time of BS Vasudeva Rao till his death, he was getting the pension regularly. He was having the complainant and one Usha Mohan and Nalini Krishnaiah as daughters and BV Ranganath as his son. They are the legal representatives of BS Vasudeva Rao and Smt. BV Padma.

3.     This complaint is filed by BV Ranganath in the name of BV Chandrika the complainant on the strength of the power of attorney executed by her in favour of Ranganath.

4.     It is contended that BV Ranganath was nominated to the proceeds of the pensionery benefits of Vasudava Rao. On the death of Vasudeva Rao whose pension was being paid to his account standing with OP-3, as per the nomination, the entire amount was transferred to the account of Sri Ranganath.  Though said Ranganath requested OP-3 not to close the pension account of  BS Vasudeva Rao after transfer of the amount to his account as a nominee as some arrears of 7^th pay commission was to be credited to the account of Vasudeva Rao, OP-3 closed the account. 

5.     OP-3 remitted to his account a sum of Rs.2,71,200/- being the amount available in the account of BS Vasudeva Rao. Since after the death of BS Vasudeva Rao, on 06.10.2017 the pension for the month of October 2017 and also for the month November 2017 was credited to the account of BS Vasudeva Rao, and while remitting the amount available in the account of Vasudeva Rao to the account of the nominee, as sum of Rs.51,027/- was deducted towards excess payment of the pension. 

6.     On 26.03.2018 the complainant Chandrika the daughter of deceased Vasudeva Rao who was unmarried and unemployed not able to lead an independent life and having no source of income of her own for livelihood, made a representation to the AG office i.e. OP.2 along with original pension payment order of Vasudeva Rao, Family Tree and income certificate to sanction and release the 2^nd family pension to her.  The complainant handed over the pension book, the original pass book, the cheque book to the officer one Geetha Venugopal of Op-2.

7.     On 11.10.2019 also complainant gave a representation to the OP with a request to forward the application along with bank portion of PPO to the PAO Central pensions accounting officer at New Delhi who is OP-1 in this case.  OP-3 after lapse of 100 days forwarded the application to CPPC at Bangalore.

8.     Inspite of giving the representations several times, OP-3 failed to take any action in settling the pension of the complainant. Complainant is entitle to receive Rs.8,00,000/-. The monthly pension will be credited within one week after the month.  The central pension accounting office on 20.01.2020 wrote a letter to OP.3 as well as CPPC, Avenue Road, Bangalore to return the documents i.e. Original disbursal portion of PPO, statement of pension payment form 01.01.2006 to the last date of payment, last payment certificate, death certificate of pensioner/ family pensions. One more representation was given on 06.06.2020 he had to write a letter on 26.06.2020 to the chairman of the OP-3 bank informing the delay in settling the claim and for taking action against it.

9.     Again on 28.07.2020/03.08.2020 OP-2 issued a letter to the pay and accounts officer at New Delhi i.e. OP0-1 stating that letter was forwarded on 18.10.2019 to obtain and forward pensioner and disburser portion of PPO in respect of  late BS Vasudeva Rao from the concerned CCPC of SBI since the pensioner was drawing pension from the OP-3. Which also specifically mentions that no PPO / reply was received PAO/IAD till the date and requested to expedite the matter the complainant was granting since she is an unmarried daughter. A legal notice was also issued to the OPs alleging serious lapses on their part and demanded to pay a Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest and also pay compensation for Rs.50,00,000/-. To cover their lacuna, evasive reply was issued. 

10.   Brother of the complainant Sri BV Ranganath did not marry to take care of sister Chandrika. She being younger has no source of income of her own. She has been deprived of the pension benefits for one reason or the other.  Complainant independently eligible for pension since the date of death of her father who was can retired employee who was drawing the pension as per the Central Government Order regarding providing 2^nd Family pension.  It is the bounden duty of the OPs to consider the prayer and request of the complainant for sanctioning the family pension after the death of her father at the earliest whereas, the same has been neglected and delayed purposefully which amounts to deficiency in service and to pray the commission to allow the complaint.

11.   Upon the service of notice, OP-1, 2 and 3 appeared before the commission through their advocates.  OP-1 and 2 filed their joint version contending that, the complainant do not come within the ambit of the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. She has not hired services of OP-1 and 2.   Authorization of pentionery benefits is only discharging their statutory duties of the office for which no consideration or service charges have been paid by the complainant and received by the OP-1 and 2. OP-1 and 2 have discharged their legal duty and functions. The claim of the complainant is speculative, bereft of merits, lack of bona fides, and illegal, vexations, frivolous, fabricated for the purpose of filing this complaint, which is liable to be dismissed.

12.   It is further contended that, the said Vasudeva Rao the father of the complainant died on 07.10.2017.  The complainant is seeking family pension after the death of her father under office memorandum dated 28.04.2011 issued by the Ministry of Personal Public Grievance Pensions, New Delhi along with arrears and interest. The said memorandum clearly clarifies that subject to fulfillment of other conditions laid down there in the widowed / divorced / unmarried daughter of a government servant/ pensioner will be eligible for family pension w.e.f from the date of issue of respective orders irrespective of the date of death of the government servant. Consequently the financial benefits in such case will accrue from the date of issue of respective orders.  Accordingly, the pension arrears of Rs.6,20,295/- has been authorized by OP-2 to be paid to the complainant w.e.f. 19.03.2018 itself, being the date of issue of income certificate by the competent revenue authorities.  

13.   It is contended that, immediately when the brother of the complainant BV Ranganath who is also the nominee for the account of the deceased BS Vasudeva Rao requesting to pay the arrears of pension from 01.01.2016 till the date of death of Vasudeva Rao, the same was forwarded to OP-1 vide letter No.PAO/IAD/A20/2019-20/382 on 05.09.2019 itself to the accounts officer, Central pension accounting officer, New Delhi to instruct CPPC Bank Branch to settle the claim and the same has been settled. 

14.   It is further contended that on 21.03.2018, BV Chandrika, the complainant in this case, who is unmarried daughter of deceased BS Vasudeva Rao made a representation to and the office of OP-2. OP-2 On 16.10.2019 requested OP-1 at New Delhi to obtain disbursers half of pension payment order from the concerned Centralized pension processing center at Bangalore and to forward the same from the said office for taking the necessary action The centralized processing centre vide letter dated 24.03.2020 returned the original disbursers portion of PPO along with all necessary documents for sanction of family pension,  and on 24.07.2020- confirmed the discontinuation of the pension payment in respect of BS Vasudeva Rao.  On 10.09.2020 the CPPC / Central Pension Accounting officer and OP-2 addressed a letter to the complainant to forward SB account details, cancelled cheques, certificate of excess pension paid, copy of the pass book, last payment certificate of pension from SBI etc. as required to authorize family pension to the complainant. The letter dated 05.10.2020 was also addressed to the CPA Office New Delhi to forward certificate of excess pension paid, excess pension recovered, and excess pension outstanding on that date. OP-3 on 21.09.2020 received in their office on 09.10.2020 certificate the last paid pension certificate, excess amount recovered certificate.

15.   Afterwards, the complainant has been authorized pension arrears of Rs.6,20,295/- consequent to the death of BS Vasudeva Rao and upon production of the income certificate from the competent authority on 19.03.2018, the pension was sanctioned. Hence there is no cause of action against OP.1 and 2 and denied all the allegations made against it and prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.

16.   OP-3 in its version has contended that the SBI through whom the deceased Vasudeva Rao was drawing the pension, replied to the notice issued by the complainant Smt. Chandrika, and further contended that complainant is not a consumer and they are not providing any service and hence there is no deficiency of service and the complaint is not maintainable. The legal notice was properly replied and have denied the allegations made against them.  Complainant wants to shift the liability on the OP-3 arising out of her own omission and commission.  Brother of complainant approached the bank for closure of the pension account of his father and made application produced indemnity bond and affidavit, death certificate of his father and request letter to the branch to pay the amount to his SB Account and on 23.05.2018 a sum of Rs.2,22,242/- has been paid to his account having number 5401 4609 7050. 

17.   It is contended that on 03.06.2019 one Mr Ranganath claiming to be only legal heir of BS Vasudev Rao approached OP-3 requesting with a letter that he has received a letter from AG office that as per 7^th pay commission arrears of pension from 01.01.2016 to 06.10.2017 (on implementation of 7^th pay commission) requested the bank to pay the amount to his account. The said request was duly forwarded to Centralized Cell of SBI to seek approval of AG’s office.  He also requested to credit the family pension with arrears on behalf of Chandrika BV. However it came to know that the said request was not processed by the Accountant General office.   On 11.10.2019 also complainant Chandrika along with her brother came to the branch and made a similar application to pay the pension stating that she is unmarried, unemployed with no source for independent income and entitle for family pension by furnishing the copies of the complaint with request to forward the application to PAO, Central Pension accounting office New Delhi.  As per the guidelines new account bearing No. 3884 5355 418 was opened for the purpose of family pension of Miss. Chandrika.

18.   Prior to the claim made by BV Chandrika for family pension the said Ranganath wrote a letter to the PAO for the accounts closed and also for sanction of secondary family pension wherein it was also informed that there was excess pension payment of Rs.77,838/- paid from 01.07.2017 to 30.11.2017 which was to be recovered and a sum of Rs.51,027/- was recovered at the time of payment of the amount to the nominee of Vasudeva Rao on 23.05.2018 and since the secondary family pension was not processed by the PAO, a sum for Rs.26,811/- was still due.  Since the secondary family pensioners name was not endorsed in the PPO with excess payment as furnished to the said Chandrika, Ranganath had sent a letter to OP-3 on 06.06.2020 stating that SBI has adocity to call for eligibility of the claimant and also threatened the concerned official with dire consequences.

19.   As per the bank records, they received the letters, papers along with letter on 18.10.2019 addressed by OP-2 addressed to PAO CPAO New Delhi with a copy to the complainant wherein they have sought disbursers half of PPO from the concerned CPPC, showing paying branch as Canara Bank, JP Nagar. There was some discrepancy in paying bank name.  Inspite of pointing out the same no action was taken to set it right.  The legal notice has been properly replied. There is no truth in the allegation made in the notice.  They have properly replied the same and it is not a vague answer to the allegations.  The claim of the complainant of Rs.8 to 10 lakhs against SBI is nothing but a preposterous attempt to shift the alleged problem of sanction of Second Family pension to be sanctioned by the Government and SBI is not liable to pay the cost or the damages or the notice charges.  Denying all the allegations made and contending that it is only a disbursing bank upon the orders of sanction of the pension bye the Accountant General, no responsibilities lies with them unless the same is ordered by the Accountant General and hence prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint contention that there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of OP-3 whatsoever in this regard and the allegations made in the complaint are all false.  The interest claimed at 12% p.a is contrary to the family pensions rules and regulations. The allegations made in the complaint are not genuine and unless the pension is sanctioned by the competent authorities the question of paying the same by the bank do not arise at all the and the claim of the complainant is imaginary and prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.

20.   In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this commission and whether the complainant proves that she is a consumer and OP-1to 3 are the service provider for a fee or charge?

2) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

21.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 :   IN THE NEGATIVE.

POINT NO.2 & 3: Do not survive for our consideration

    In view of our answers to Point No.1

                    For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

22.   On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by the both the parties, it becomes cleared that, BS Vasudeva Rao was the father of the complainant and was working as an accountant with the OP-2 organization.  On his attainment of superannuation in the year 2008, he was given pension as per the documents produced by the complainant as well as OP. It is also not in dispute that he died on 06.10.2017 and prior to it, his wife Padma died in the year 2015.

23.   It is not in dispute also that, the GPA holder of this complainant Sri BV Ranganath was the nominee to the pension  accounts of his father BS Vasudarao and upon his death, the said Ranganath made a representation by giving application and providing all the required documents sought for the transfer of the amount lying in the account of his deceased father BS Vasudeva Rao. The letter given to OP-3 is also produced.  Wherein, he has specifically requested OP-3 to transfer the amount available in his father’s account upon his death on the strength of nominee and “Not to close the account as there are some arrears to be paid to the said account”.

24.   The sum of Rs.2,22,242/- has been transferred to his name after deducting Rs.51,027/- which according to OP-3 is the excess amount of pension paid to the account of Sri Vasudev Rao for the month of October 2017 and November 2017. The said Ranganath has also raised a point though not relevant in this case that arrears of the pay and allowances upon implementation of  7^th pay commission from 01.06.2016 till death of Vasudev Rao has not been paid. 

25.   OP-01 and 2 have filed relevant documents sanctioning the amount upon the implementation of 7^th pay commission to the father of the complainant Sri Vasudev Rao fixing his notional basic pay at Rs.58,600/-  and the actual pension entitlement is at Rs.29,300/-

26.   Upon the directions of this commission, the counsel for OP filed a report stating that a sum of Rs.60,273/- was to be paid regarding the arrears towards 7^th pay commission and the same has been paid.

27.   Further upon fixing the family pension to Sri BV Chandrika a sum of Rs.6,20,295/- has been credited to the account of the complainant on 19.11.2020 by recovering a sum of Rs.26,811/- in addition to Rs.51,027/- recovered earlier while transferring the amount to the account of the nominee i.e. Ranganath in respect of the excess payment of the pension to Vasudeva Rao upon his death on the said month and for November 2017.  Both the parties have filed memo of calculation stating that the OP is due a sum of Rs.3,87,000/- along with interest in respect of the family pension to Smt. Chandrika.  Whereas a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- has already been paid to the account of Smt. Chandrika upon sanctioning of the 2^nd family pension from 03.08.2018 as per the rules. He has also filed another calculation stating that a sum of Rs.12,75,253/- to be paid in respect of the arrears of the amount upon the implementation of the 7^th pay commission by treating the basic at Rs.58,600/- whereas he is not entitle for such amount as the basic was fixed notionally and the said Vasudeva Rao was entitled to actual basic amount of Rs.29,300/-.

28.   Be it as may be, upon filing of this complaint OP -1 and 2 has sanctioned the 2^nd family pension to the complainant and OP-3 has paid the same. Upon considering the chronology and sequence of letter correspondences, OPs have inordinately delayed in making correspondences with the authorities who are duty bound to sanction the family pension. On 26.03.2018 the complainant has made a representation with all documents to OP-2, to move the authorities for sanctioning family pension whereas OP-2 kept quite for all the while and only during October 2019 it moved for the first time to OP-1 for sanctioning of the 2^nd family pension to the complainant. So also there is delay in correspondence by OP-3 also even though it received the request letter to send the necessary documents they have been very lethargic and careless in nature in attending the request of the complainant. It is to be noted here that the complainant is an unmarried daughter of the deceased BS Vasudeva Rao who is not having any employment and independent source of income. That should have weighed more by the OPs in getting the matter decided at the earliest which OPs are failed to do it. To this extent we have found fault with OPs and it amounts to deficiency in service.

29.   On the other hand, the counsel for OP0-1 and 2 have vehemently argued that the complainant is not a consumer and AG’s office at Bangalore and OP-1 are doing their statutory duties without receiving any fee or consideration for their work and hence this complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and they have relied on the decisions reported and we have gone through the same:-

“(1) State of Orissa Vs Divisional Manager LIC and another

(2) Revision Petition No.125/1995 by National Redressal Commission- Sukhvir Singh Vs The Superintending Engineer, I&P(WR) & Anr.

(3) Controller and Audi General in RP 961/97 and connected by National Redressal Commission.

(4) Accountant General Vs Shyam Lal Mehar and others.- Appeal No.FA/13/132

(5) District  Commission Orders, Mysore. In CC.No.154/2020 dated 08.04.2021 – S.C.Krishnappa Vs The Deputy Director of Fisheries, Bangalore & another”

30.   The said decisions are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here also the complainant is seeking 2^nd family pension from OP-1 and 2 and it is OP-1 and 2 who have to sanction the family pension in accordance with the rules and procedure issued by the Government of India from time to time. There is no dispute regarding the entitlement of 2^nd family pension to the complainant which has to be sanctioned by OP-1 and 2, due to the death of the father of the complainant. As per the said decisions cited above a duty is caste on the OP-1 and 2 to sanction the pension to the complainant.  At the same time no consideration or fee is prescribed to do the said act and hence it is the duty bound service they are providing to the complainant which do not attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. 

31.   Though there is delay in corresponding by OP1 to 3 and in particular OP-3 is only a facilitator for payment of the pension as ordered by OP-1 and 2 we are of the opinion that there is no negligence on the part of OP-1 to 3 so as to attract the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. In view of the said decisions, the complaint is not maintainable and no relief can be granted to the complainant even though there is delay in correspondence made by OP-1 to 3.  In view of this, we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE NEGATIVE.  When such being the case, it is a futile exercise to discuss and decide and reason out in respect of Point No.2 and 3 and hence in our opinion the said point do not survive for our consideration. However in case the complainant feels that she is entitle for interest on the amount that she received due to the delay in correspondence made by OP-1 and 2 and she is at liberty to move the concerned platform to seek the redressal and pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 05^th day of APRIL 2022)

MEMBER                   MEMBER                  PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the letter written to bank Manager, SBI.

Ex P2: Copy of the Account statement of my father.

Ex. P3: Copy of the letter written by dt: 11.10.2019.

Ex P4: Copy of the letter dated 21.03.2018.

Ex P5: Copy of the letter issued by Central Pension accounting office.

Ex P6: Copy of the letter dtd.26.06.2020.

Ex P7: Copy of the letter dtd: 28.07.2020.

Ex P8: Copy of the legal notice dtd 18.08.2020.

Ex P9: Copy of the reply dtd. 18.08.2020.

Ex P10: General Power of attorney.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Ms. Ritu Sharma, Branch Manager of OP-3.

RW-2: Smt. Yashoda, Deputy Accountant General(Administration)

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the letter of the SBI to CPPC.

Ex R2: Copy of the letter received from complainant to PAO CPAO.

Ex R3: Copy of the letter dtd: 14.11.2019.

Ex R4: Copy of the letter dtd:29.01.2020.

Ex R5: Copy of the letter received from CPPC.

Ex R6: Copy of letter received from CPPC.

Ex R7: Copy of letter received from GPA holder.

Ex R8: Copy of reply letter by SBI to GPA holder of the complainant.

Ex R9: Copy of the legal notice.

Ex R10: Copy of reply to the legal notice.

Ex R11: Copy of letter addressed  by SBI to complainant.

Ex R12: Copy of bill status report.

Ex R13 : Copy of letter dated 10.09.020.

Ex R14: Copy of the letter dated 05.10.2020.

Ex R15: Copy of the letter dated 21.09.2020

Ex R16: Copy of  another letter dated 12.04.2021.

Ex R17: Copy letter to the Central Pension office dt:12.04.2021.

MEMBER                   MEMBER                  PRESIDENT

RAK*