COL.S.C.SHARMA vs State Bank of India

COL. S.C. Sharma approached this Commission with a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that inspite of receipt of Pension Pay Orders from the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad on 21st May, 1991 at the Pay Branch of the State Bank of India at Haldwani through the State Bank of India, Nainital who received it on 23.4.1991, the opposite party did not make payment until 10th March, 1992 while he made several attempts to contact the officials of the same branch on a number of times just after his retirement from Armed Forces on 20.8.1990. According to the complainant he should have been paid on 1st June, 1991, (a) Retirement Gratuity Rs.98,125/-, (b) commuted value of pension amounting to Rs. 1,94,291.00, and (c) monthly pension at the rate of 1,739/- plus DA and relief totalling Rs. 3,050/- per month but the same could be paid by transfer credit to his Saving Bank Account No. 25522 only on 10.3.1992 when the C.D.A. (Pension), Allahabad vide his telegram dated 26.2.1992 asked the opposite party for the action taken on the P.P.O. sent to it long ago in April, 1991. Copy of the said telegram was received by the complainant also on 9.3.1992 upon which he came to know about the actual position of the receipt of the P.P.O. by opposite party in the last week of May, 1991. He made request to the opposite party to credit the arrears of the pension emolument/due up to June, 1991, and the amounts of the Cratuity and Commutation of Pension on 1.7.1991 in his Savings Bank Account which was already in operation with the opposite party Bank in order to get the interest thereon which he had suffered on account of the negligence of the opposite party but no action was taken by the opposite party and therefore he filed this complaint.

IN response to the notice of the complaint the opposite party filed written statement dated 7.7.1993 alongwith an affidavit of Sri K.K. Guruani, Chief Manager of State Bank of INdia, Haldwani sworn on 9.7.1993. The opposite party while admitting the operating of the Saving Bank Account No. 25522 by the complainant with the opposite party Branch and also the receipt of the Pension Pay Order No. 003365/91 on 21.5.1991 in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the written statement, has taken the stand that mere receipt of the P.P.O. and opening of the Saving Bank Account were not enough to get the pension and other retirement benefits of gratuity and commutation of the pension as alleged by the complainant but a number of formalities were to be completed by the complainant with regard to his life certificate, identifications, attestation of his signature for which the complainant never approached the opposite party branch of Senior Officer of the Bank and when he contacted the State Bank of INdia Branch, Haldwani on 10.3.1992, payments of his gratuity, commutation of the pension and arrears of the monthly pension were credited to his Saving Bank Account and thus there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant himself was responsible for the delay. The opposite party has emphatically denied that the complainant had ever visited the opposite party or senior officer and made any complaint to it in writing with regard to his pension matters. The complainant has also filed rejoinder affidavit sworn on 11.8.1993 in reply to the written statement and in support of his claim and re- iterated the facts as mentioned in the complaint.

We have heard Mr. R.C. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. D.P. Dwivedi, Advocate for the opposite party. Mr, Dwivedi has laid emphasis that since the claim of the relief amount of Rs. 1,14,806.66 is less than Rs. 5 lacs, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission on account of the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. This plea is not permitted firstly at this stage of the argument as no such objection has been raised in the written statement filed on behalf of the opposite party. Secondly the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum was only to an extent not exceeding Rs. 1 lac before the amendment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which came into effect from 18.6.1993 and before this amendment the petition of a claim over Rs. 1 lac was to be entertained and was cognizable by the State Commission under Section 17(1)(a) of the said Act. In the present case the complaint had been filed on 23.3.1993 before the effective date of 18.6.1993 when the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum has been raised from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 5 lacs. Hence the complaint has rightly been filed before this Commission and the objection in this regard is not sustainable and is accordingly turned down.

THE learned Counsel for the opposite party has also urged before us that though the P.P.O. was received by the opposite party branch in May, 1991 but the amounts as payable to the complainant in accordance with the said P.P.O. could not be credited to his Saving Bank account unless the complainant contacted and completed the required formalities and that the complainant never approached the opposite party in person before 10.3.1992 nor made any representation to the opposite party or the Senior Officers of the opposite party and when he approached on 10.3.1992, all his dues have been paid and credited to his Savings Bank Account after having completed the requisite formalities. In this connection Mr. R.C. Sharma learned Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the paragraphs 4 to 7 of the complaint and paragraphs 6 to 8 and 17 of the rejoinder affidavit of the complainant (Col. S.C. Sharma), which reveal that after the retirement the complainant has been frequently visiting the office of the opposite party at Haldwani on a number of occasions as detailed in paragraph 8 of the rejoinder affidavit from 7.10.1991 to 2.12.1991 while he visited the Bank in connection with the collection of the cash of the cheques drawn and deposits made in his Bank Account with the opposite party. It is but natural that when he visited the Bank for the above purpose he must have enquired about the receipt of the P.P.O. and the payment of the retirement benefits to the credit of his account. The stand taken by the opposite party that the complainant never approached the opposite party in connection with his P.P.O. and payment of the pension etc. before 10.3.1992 is not convincing and sustainable in view of the above visits of the complainant to the opposite party branch. A retired Government servant whose livelihood mostly depends on the retirement benefits and pension which he gets after his retirement cannot sit idle and go on waiting silently without bothering to find out as to what happened to his pension case and other retirement benefit such as gratuity etc. In the present case the complainant not only visited the opposite party branch on several dates from 7.10.1991 to 2.12,1991 and other dates upto 10.3.1992 reminding the officials of the opposite party (Bank), about his pension papers but when he found no response from then he reminded the Army Authorities and the Pension Sanctioning Authority through the letters dated 20.12.1991, 1.2.1992, 24.2.1992 and 26.2.1992 etc. mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 18 of his complaint supported by his rejoinder affidavit sworn on 11.8.1993. These reminders strengthen the case of the complainant that while he had been writing to Army Authorities he must have approached and enquired from the opposite party Bank branch about his pension papers atleast on the dates when he visited the Bank to collect the amount of his cheques tendered at the opposite party''s branch Haldwani and deposited some cash therein. Thus, there is no doubt about his version in regard to the approaching and enquiring about his pension papers from the opposite party during the period with effect from the date of his retirement to the date of the payment and we accept it.

THE learned Counsel of the complainant has also invited our attention to the Pension Payment Scheme for Defence Pensioners under which each Public Sector Bank has nominated a branch at each District as link branch for coordinating the work connected with the disbursement and accounting of the pension payments from their branches. According to this scheme the Sanctioning Authority of the Pension is required to send the Pension Pay Order (P.P.O.) to the Public Sector Bank Branch appointed as link branch and the link branch will forward the same to the Paying Branch who in turn shall advise the pensioner to appear at the branch for completion of the formalities such as indentification, checking of his signatures, photographs etc. as per the instruction contained in paragraph 7 under head "Function of Paying Branch" which is reproduced below : "On receipt of pension documents from the link branch, the Paying Branch will : (i) Advise the pensioner to appear at the Branch for his identification, identification of the pensioner is an important step. This comprises checking of signatures and photographs of the pensioner with those available in the pension documents. In the case of a pensioner, other than a pensioner below Commissioned Officer rank, he has also to produce his personal copy of the letter received from me Pension Sanctioning Authority informing about the grant of pension. In the case of Commissioned Officer, he has to produce last pay certificate or in its absence a declaration in the form given at item (sic.) of Annexure ''D'' Personal identification will be only for first payment of pension at the Branch. In case photograph is not available on the pension documents, the paying branch will in due course, obtain new photograph from the pensioner (which can be attested by any officer of R.B.I, or a P.S.B.), and complete the pension documents. (ii) Obtain an undertaking in Annexure ''E'' from the pensioner that excess payment credited to his/her account due to delay in receipt of any material information or any bona fide error can be recovered by the Bank. (iii) Obtain in the case of new pensioner, specimen signature or thumb impression, as the case may be, in the space provided for purpose in the pension documents".

This scheme has been issued by the Defence Ministry of Government of India in agreement with the Bank and Treasury, etc. The learned Counsel for the opposite party did not make any objection about the existence and operation of this scheme nor any objection has been made in written statement about this scheme. The opposite party has also admitted that the Pension Pay Order No. 003365/91 has already been received by the opposite party in May, 1991 and it was its duty, cast under the above scheme, to intimate and advise the complainant-pensioner to complete the formalities as required under paragraph 7 of die ''Function of the Paying Branch'' immediately thereafter without waiting for the approach of the complainant or reminder from the Pension Payment Authority who issued the P.P.O. in this regard. Advice could be given to the pensioner through a letter sent to him by post or otherwise. But the opposite party has failed to discharge its liability and duty to advise the complainant to appear and complete the requisite formalities and thereby it was grossly negligent in discharging of its banking service to the complainant until 10.3.1992 when it was reminded by the complainant in person on receipt of the telegram No. GH-G1/VI/003365 dated 26.2.1992 from the CDA (Pension of Allahabad). This failure and negligence on the part of the opposite party not only amounts to deficiency in service but it had put the complainant in financial hardship and suffering by causing mental agony and physical harassment on account of nonpayment of his gratuity, pension commutation and monthly pension for a long period of more than one year inspite of his visiting the opposite party (Bank branch), several times as observed above for which the complainant is entitled to be compensated for delay, in payment of his dues and also for mental agony and physical harassment, as prayed by him in paragraph 16 of his complaint in Sub-clauses (a) and (b). As regards the compensation of Rs. 46/666/- on account of the loss due to delayed rehabilitation, there is no justification and therefore, we do not allow it under the circumstances of this case as the complainant could not give any satisfactory evidence and account as to how he had suffered a monthly loss of Rs. 5,000/- per month. However, as observed above he is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on account of the mental agony and physical harassment.

WE allow the complaint, and order that the opposite party (State Bank of india, Haldwani Branch through its Manager), shall pay to the complainant Col. S.C. Sharma (Retired), interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 2,92,416/- of retirement Gratuity and the amount the commuted Pension from 1.6.1991 to 10.3.1992 which amounts to Rs. 40,938/-, a sum of Rs. 7,200/- as interest on the amount of Rs. 40,938/- from 11.3.1992 to March, 1993 the date of complaint filed before this Commission and compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harrassment.

THE complainant shall also be entitled to costs of these proceedings which we assess as Rs. 1,000/-. We further order that the opposite party shall pay these amounts within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the above amount from the date of this order to the date of payment.

Let the copy of this order be sent by post as per rules. Complaint allowed with costs. ________________