COMMITTEE OF TRUSTEES, STATE BANK OF INDIA vs ANIL VIJH

THE facts leading to this Revision Petition which has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh are that the present Respondent Shri Anil Vijh had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala alleging that he was in the employment of the State Bank of India and was lastly posted at Ambala Cantt. when he resigned on 27th May, 1990. During the period of about 16 years'' service he was getting deducted some amount out of his salary to be deposited in the Provident Fund as he was a member of the S.B.I. Employees Provident Fund. It was a contributory Provident Fund. When he left the service, a sum of Rs. 51,330/-was due to him on account of Provident Fund. He applied for the refund of the said amount to the Committee of Trustees, State Bank of India Employees Provident Fund, Control Accounts Office, Calcutta (i.e., Petitioner No. 1) through the present Petitioner No. 2, i.e., through the Mall Road Branch of the State Bank of India, Ambala Cantt. The Board of Trustees sanctioned the refund of the Provident Fund in the name of the complainant on 9th August, 1991 and forwarded a cheque for the amount of Rs. 51,330/- to the Petitioner No. 2 for handing it over to the complainant. Petitioner No. 2 called the complainant along with a stamp paper of Rs. 2.25 paise for handing over the cheque. The complainant went to collect the said cheque but the Petitioner No. 2 did not give the same to the complainant and pressed the complainant to pay the amount in question towards the housing loan which the complainant had obtained during his service and which was outstanding. The complainant narrated his financial position to petitioner No. 2 and told him that he is ready to make the payment, of up-to-date instalments of the loan and shall also pay all the future instalments on due dates and that he cannot withhold the legally due payment of Provident Fund. However, the request of the complainant went unheeded. The complainant further pleaded that the housing loan is fully secured with the Bank and the petitioner No. 2 was not entitled to mix up the two transactions particularly when the Provident Fund amount was legally not attachable under the Provident Fund Act. The complaint was filed against both the petitioners.

THE further case of the complainant was that petitioner No. 1 i.e., the Board of Trustees was responsible to make the said payment of Provident Fund directly to him and ought not have issued the payment through petitioner No. 2. The complainant claimed interest on the amount of Provident Fund @ 24% along with damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-on the ground that he suffered great mental agony and loss of credibility in the society. Petitioner No.2 contested the complaint and averred in the counter that the complainant was not a "consumer" as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) and more over no deficiency of service has been alleged by him. The housing loan has become payable in lump sum when the complainant retired from service. The Provident Fund amount in question has been credited to the housing loan account of the complainant and thus the said amount will be deemed to have been paid to him.

THE District Forum held that the State Bank of India, Ambala Cantt. branch has illegally withheld the payment of Rs. 51,330/- due to the complainant and thus has committed deficiency in the rendering of service. Consequently, the opposite parties, i.e., present petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 51,330/- to the complainant with interest @ 15% p.a. from 1.9.1991 till payment. Rs. 5,000/-was also awarded to the complainant as conpensation for mental anguish.

FEELING aggrieved of that order of the District Forum, the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh which affirmed the order of the District Forum and consequently dismissed the appeal. Thus the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The claimant who is Respondent herein was an employee of the State Bank of India and his last place of posting was at the Mall Road Branch at Ambala Cantt. During his service he had obtained housing loan. He resigned from the service on 27th May, 1990 as he intended to fight Assembly Election. According to the rules and the agreement about housing loan the loan amount became payable in a lump sum.

THE Complainant applied to the Committee of Trustees i.e. the present petitioner No. l for the payment of the Provident Fund amount due to him. That amount stood at Rs. 51,330/-. The trustees released that amount by means of a cheque and forwarded that cheque to the Branch of the Bank where the Complainant last served. It is the specific contention of the Complainant that the said Branch had called the Complainant along with a stamp paper of Rs. 2.25/-for handing over the said cheque. This contention has not been denied in the counter filed by the Branch of the bank i.e. the petitioner No. 2. When the Complainant went to collect the said cheque, instead of handing over amount of the cheque to the Complainant he was pressed to pay the amount in question towards the housing loan. Therefore, the main question that arises for the consideration is whether the Bank could withhold the payment of the amount of the cheque to the Complainant.

THE learned Counsel for the present petitioner has relied upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed in relation to the employees of the State Bank of India regarding Provident Fund. The said rule reads as follows: 26. When a member resigns or retires from the service of the Bank he shall, if he has served the Bank for a period of five years or more, be entitled to receive the balance at his credit in the fund. Provided that when any member resigning or retiring from the service of the Bank is under a liability incurred by him to the Bank the trustees shall, irrespective of the duration of his service, pay to the Bank out of the balance at his credit in the fund any amount due by him to the Bank (not exceeding in any case the sums contributed by the Bank to his account in the fund and any interest credited to his account on the sums so contributed). We are of the opinion that the said Rule is not applicable to the present case. Of course, it was open to the Trustees to pay to the Bank out of the amount at the credit of the employee in the fund any amount due to the bank (not exceeding in any case the sums contributed by the Bank to his account in the fund and any interest accrued to his account On the same so contributed), but in the present case the Trustees chose to release the whole amount standing in the Provident Fund account of the claimant in his favour and did not pay any portion thereof to the Bank.

RELIANCE was placed upon Section 6 of the Provident Fund Act, 1925 but in our opinion it is also not applicable to the employee of the State Bank of India as they have their own Rules. That Section applies to the Government or Railway Provident Fund which is contributory.

THE next question that arises whether the Bank could withhold the payment of the Provident Fund amount due to the claimant. The answer is clearly in the negative. It is well settled that the provident fund amount cannot be attached nor the Bank can exercise any lien over it for appropriating it towards the housing loan due from the claimant. The last question that arises is whether the Bank is guilty of deficiency in the rendering of banking service. It is not disputed that banking service is included in the Clause of ''service'' as defined in the Act. When the Bank had received the cheque favouring the claimant it was obligatory upon it to disburse the amount of the cheque to the claimant. Withholding of the amount will amount to deficiency of service in the rendering of service. It is totally immaterial if the transaction of the customer of the bank is a solitary one or he is a regular customer. As noticed above the cheque was in favour of the claimant and the Bank was bound to make the payment to him. This case cannot be treated as a dispute between an ex-employee and the employer about the payment of Provident Fund. We need not dwell in detail upon this point as it has been discussed exhaustively by the District Forum and we agree with its conclusion.

FOR the reasons given above we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission while confirming the order of the District Forum.

CONSEQUENTLY , we reject the present Revision Petition with costs which we assess at Rs. 1,000/-. ORDER Mr. Y. Krishan, Member� In my opinion, the State Bank of India, one of the Revision Petitioners before us, was not acting as a banker in relation to the respondent Shri Anil Vijh, who was an employee of the Revision Petitioner Bank. The impugned transaction of the Bank obtaining the cheque for the provident fund amount released by the Trustees from the respondent employer and thereafter withholding the payment of the said cheque to the respondent was a transaction between an employer and an employee and not between a Bank as a bank functioning under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It defines "banking" as meaning "accepting" for the purpose of lending or investment of deposits of money from the public repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawal by cheque, draft order or otherwise". As such, the dispute between the petitioner State Bank of India on one hand and the respondent Shri Anil Vijh on the other hand is not a ''consumer dispute'' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. It may also be relevant to add that only employee''s contribution to the provident fund is absolutely protected and cannot be attached by the employer towards any dues owed by the employee to the employer. But so far as the employer''s contribution to the provident fund is concerned, he is fully entitled to adjust any dues outstanding against the employee and in favour of the employer. This is precisely what the Rule 26 of the State Bank of India Provident Fund Rule provides; liability incurred by the employer to the Bank can be paid to the Bank out of the balance at the credit of the employee''s Provident Fund Account but not exceeding the sums contributed by the Bank to the fund account.

I , therefore, hold that in this case there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank as defined in Section 2(l)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act and hence, this is not a ''consumer dispute'' which can be maintained before the Consumer Forums. The Revision Petition is allowed and the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside. There is no order as to costs.