Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.7.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint of the complainant(now respondent No.1) and directed Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant) as under ; “Opposite Party NO.1 is directed to make payment of interest on the arrears of pension already paid as per the rate payable on the account maintained by the complainant. Opposite Party NO.1 shall also additionally pay 2% penal interest on the arrears of pension from the dates it became due. The above interest (normal plus penal) shall be paid from the respective dates on which the arrears became due till the date of payment of arrears. Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the harassment caused to him as well as Rs.7000/- towards costs of litigation. The order be complied with by Opposite Party NO.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall liable to pay the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the arrears of pension from the respective dates that the amount became due (pension of every month) as well as on the amount of Rs.50,000/- till the date of actual payment, besides Rs.7000/- towards cost of litigation.” However, the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 was dismissed. 2. The complainant retired from the office of the District & Sessions Judge, U.T., Chandigarh on 01.08.1985. He was drawing unrevised pension of Rs.689/- per month, through Opposite Party No.1, as per Pension Payment Order No.708559901390. The pension was revised with retrospective effect i.e. from 01.01.1996, as per the ready reckoner dated 09.07.1998, issued by the Government of Punjab. After revision, the complainant became entitled to a sum of Rs.2129/- per month, as pension. It was stated that Opposite Party No.1/appellant credited the arrears of revised pension amount, to the account of the complainant only on 2.6.2007. No interest was paid, on this amount. It was further stated that since the arrears were paid after 9½ years, the complainant represented to the opposite parties, to pay interest on the delayed payment of arrears of pension . Opposite Party No.2, in response to the representation, wrote to Opposite Party No.1, that the matter regarding interest, on delayed payment, of arrears of pension be considered by it, as the pension sanctioning authority had no role to play, in this regard. Relying on the reply of Opposite Party No.2, the complainant made a representation dated 23.7.2009 to Opposite Party No.1 to pay interest @18% p.a. on the delayed payment of arrears of pension, but Opposite Party No.1, vide letter dated 25.7.2009 refused to comply with it, stating that, as per the guidelines of A.G., U .T., there was no provision to allow interest @ 18% p.a. It was further stated that, on account of non-payment of interest, on the delayed payment of arrears of revised pension, by Opposite Party No.1, which was the Pension Disbursing Authority, it was deficient, in rendering service. It was further stated that, on account of delayed payment of revised pension, the complainant underwent a tremendous physical harassment and mental agony, as also suffered financial loss. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed. 3. Opposite Party No.1, in its reply, stated that it was only serving agent of the Government. It was, however, admitted that it was the Pension Disbursing Authority of the complainant. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, could not credit the arrears of pension, to the account of the complainant, in the absence of any directions, from the concerned Department. It was further stated that, in the Pension Payment Order, issued by the Government, in favour of the complainant annexure R1, his pension was fixed at Rs.689/-. It was further stated that the letter dated 15.3.1999, showed the pension of the complainant as Rs.689/- P.M.. It was further stated that the complainant was asked by Opposite Party No.1, to take up the matter, with the concerned Department, as the bank had no authority to pay interest, on the delayed payment, but he did not do so. It was further stated that delay in the assessment of arrears of pension, could not be attributed to Opposite Party No.1. It was denied that Opposite Party No.1 was deficient, in rendering service. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. Opposite Party No.2, in its reply, stated that the case of the complainant was finalized on 19.5.1999. Since the complainant retired on 1.8.1995, hence, his unrevised pension was fixed as Rs.689/- P.M., as per the old scales. It was further stated that the Pension Payment Order was to be issued, on the basis of 10 months’ average emoluments, or last pay drawn of the retiree. It was further stated that there is no provision to issue Pension Payment Order, after the revision of pension. It was further stated that, in the meanwhile, due to implementation of the recommendations of the Fourth Punjab Pay Commission regarding rationalization of pension of Pre 01.01.1996 retirees, the Chandigarh Administration also adopted the instructions of the Govt. of Punjab, and issued instructions vide letter No.61/1/-FII(14)-98/11244 dated 25.8.1998, vide which, the pension and family pension of the retirees of the Chandigarh Administration, were also revised. It was further stated that necessary instructions were issued, and for simplification, ready reackoner was provided by the Govt. of Punjab. The letters adopted by the Chandigarh Administration and the ready reckoner, were sent to Opposite Party No.1, the Pension Disbursing Authority. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 failed to revise the pension of the complainant. It was further stated that only on 02.06.2007, that Opposite Party No.1, suo-motto credited Rs.2,92,666/- to the account of the complainant, as arrears of the revised pension. It was further stated that since the pension could be claimed, by the complainant, as a matter of right, for the service, rendered by him, it was the bounden duty of Opposite Party No.1, to implement the instructions, referred to above. It was further stated that there was no fault, at all, on the part of Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2, was not deficient, in rendering service. The remaining averments , were denied, being wrong. 5. The parties led evidence, in support their case. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties , and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/ Opposite Party No.1. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant/ Opposite Party No.1, submitted that the complaint was barred by time, but the District Forum, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, and was, thus, wrong in accepting the complaint. It may be stated here, that it was the duty of Opposite Party No.1, being the Pension Disbursing Authority, to revise the pension of the complainant, as soon as, the requisite letters, were received from the Chandigarh Administration, alongwith the ready reckoner, and pay him the arrears thereof. The arrears of pension, no doubt,were suo- motto credited to the account of the complainant, on 2.6.2007, by Opposite Party No.1, on the basis of the letters, sent by the Chandigarh Administration alongwith ready reckoner. The complainant, requested Opposite Party No.1, to pay him interest, on the delayed payment of arrears of revised pension, but to no avail. It was for the first time, that on 25.7.2009, vide letter C6, that Opposite Party NO.1, denied the claim of the complainant, for payment of interest. Cause of action, thus, arose to the complainant for the first time on 25.7.2009, when payment of his claim for interest was finally denied. The period of limitation, thus, started running, for filing the complaint under Section 12 of the Act, w.e.f. 25.7.2009, and not from the date, when in the year 2007, the amount of arrears of revised pension were credited to his account. The complaint was filed by the complainant in June,2010. He could file the complaint within a period of two years, from the date when the cause of action arose to him. The complaint, having been filed on 9.6.2010, therefore, could be said to be within limitation. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, that the complaint was time barred, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 10. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that it was not the duty of Opposite Party No.1, to revise the pension of the complainant and credit arrears thereof, to his account. He further submitted that, no doubt, Opposite Party No.1, is the Pension Disbursing Authority of the complainant, but until and unless, his revised pension payment order was received, from his employer, who had not been impleaded as a party, the amount of revised pension, could not be credited to his account. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Ex.2/X is the letter dated 6.8.98 from the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, to all the Heads of Departments/Offices, regarding implementation of the recommendations of the Fourth Punjab Pay Commission, regarding pension, and other retirement benefits. A copy of this letter was also sent to the State Bank of Patiala, Sector-22, Chandigarh Opposite Party No.1, Pension Disbursing Authority of the complainant. Alongwith this letter, ready reckoner R2/2 was also sent to Opposite Party No.1, mentioning therein the unrevised pension and the revised pension, of a retiree. R2/1 is another letter dated 25.8.98 from the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, to all the Heads of Departments/Offices with regard to the rationalization of pension/family pension of pre-1.1.1996-pensioners/family pensioners in view of the implementation of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. So it was the duty of Opposite Party No.1, to suo motto, credit to the account of the complainant amount of revised pension. It, however, failed to do so immediately, after receipt of the aforesaid letters and ready reckoners. It is clear from the record that Opposite Party No.1 suo- motto, on 2.6.2007, credited Rs.2,92,666.23p, as arrears of revised pension, to the account of the complainant. In case, it was not the duty of Opposite Party No.1, to credit the amount of revised pension to the account of the complainant, then how suo-motto on 2.6.2007, the aforesaid amount was credited to his account, is not known. Under these circumstances, by not crediting the amount of revised pension to the account of the complainant immediately, and, on the other hand, delaying the same for a number of years , Opposite Party No.1 was grossly deficient, in rendering service. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same is rejected. 11. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to interest, on the delayed payment of revised pension or not? Had the amount of revised pension been credited to the account of the complainant immediately, after revision, on receipt of the letter aforesaid, he would have used that amount, for his needs or would have also deposited that amount, in the bank, thereby getting handsome returns thereon. Opposite Party No.1, delayed the payment of arrears of revised pension, from 6.8.98, when letter R2/X alongwith ready reckoner, was received by it, upto 2.6.2007. It was on 2.6.2007 that arrears of revised pension, in the sum of Rs.2,92,666/-, was credited suo motto, to the account of the complainant. For illegally withholding the amount of revised pension, due to the complainant, from 6.8.98 to 2.6.2007 by Opposite Party No.1, the complainant is entitled to interest. In our considered opinion, if interest @ 8% p.a. is paid w.e.f. 6.8.1998, on the arrears of revised pension, credited to the account of the complainant on 2.6.2007, from the respective date(s), when the amount of revised pension became due (pension of every month) that shall be fair and reasonable. It is, therefore, held that the complainant/respondent is entitled to interest @ 8% p.a., as indicated above. 12. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the District Forum, without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the Master Circular of the Reserve Bank of India, granted 2% penal interest, to the complainant, for delay in crediting the amount of revised pension to his account, over and above the normal rate. A3 is the copy of the circular, which has been placed on record. According to this circular, pension paying banks should compensate the pensioners for the delay, if any, in crediting the pension/arrears thereof, by paying compensation at bank rate plus 2% penal interest, for the delay, after the due date, automatically, without waiting for any claim from them. It is further mentioned therein, that the circular is applicable to all delayed pension payments made since 1.10.2008, and not before that. In the instant case, the arrears of revised pension of the complainant, were credited to his account on 2.6.2007 by Opposite Party No.1, suo motto. This circular, therefore, was not applicable to the case of the complainant. The District Forum was, thus, wrong, in granting penal interest @ 2% for the delayed payment, on revised pension amount. The findings of the District Forum, to this extent, being illegal, are liable to be reversed. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being correct, is accepted. 13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the District Forum did not properly go through the averments, contained in the complaint, and granted relief beyond the pleadings. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. In the complaint, the complainant claimed compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony suffered by him, at the hands of Opposite Party No.1, on account of deficiency, in rendering service and Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses. Without going through the averments, contained, in the complaint, the District Forum granted compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, and costs of Rs.7000/-. The District Forum was expected to at least go through the averments, contained in the complaint, but strangely enough, it did not take the trouble to do so. It is, therefore, held that the respondent/complainant is entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, for physical harassment, and mental agony, caused to him, on account of delay in crediting the amount, to his account. He is also entitled to costs in the sum of Rs.3300/-. The findings of the District Forum, granting Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs, beyond pleadings, being illegal, are reversed. 14. No other point was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs, and the impugned order is modified in the following manner ; (i) The appellant/Opposite Party No.1, is directed to make payment of interest, on the arrears of pension, already credited to the account of the respondent/complainant @ 8% p.a., from the date(s) the same became due (i.e when the revised pension of every month fell due) from 6.8.98 till 2.6.2007, when the amount of Rs.2,92,666.23p/- was credited to his account. (ii) The appellant/Opposite Party NO.1, is directed to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, claimed by the complainant, in the complaint, instead of Rs.50,000/-, awarded by the District Forum (iii) The appellant/Opposite Party No.1, is directed to pay costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.3300/- as claimed by the respondent/complainant, in the complaint, instead of Rs.7000/-, awarded by the District Forum. (iv) The direction/order of the District Forum, awarding 2% penal interest, over and above the normal interest, on the arrears of pension, being illegal, is set aside. (v) The aforesaid amount shall be calculated, and paid by the appellant/Opposite Party NO.1 within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order, failing which, it shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a., instead of 8% p.a, on the aforesaid payable amounts, besides costs, till realization. 16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 17. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
