K.T.SHIVAIAH vs CHAIRMAN And MANAGING DIRECTOR, CANARA BANK

THE complainant in this case retired from services as Deputy Director of Health Services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.1982. He was sanctioned a pension of Rs. 978/- p.m. THE Accountant General, Karnataka sanctioned a sum of Rs. 44,675.04 p. being the commuted value of Rs. 326/- out of the pension of Rs. 978/- p.m. granted to him by his letter dated 6.1.1987 addressed to the District Treasury Officer, Pension Payment Treasury, Bangalore. THE District Treasury Officer Forwarded the said letter to the Canara Bank for creaditing the said amount to the account of the complainant on 20.1.1991. THE respondent did not credit the said amount to the S.B. Account of the complainant. But they started deducting a sum of Rs. 326/- p.m. from his pension with effect from 1.2.1987. Hence, he has filed this complaint to direct the respondent to credit the sum of Rs. 44,675.04 p. being the commuted value of Rs. 326/- of his pension to his S.B. Account No. 784 in the Canara Bank, I Block, Rajajinagar and also to credit the reduced amount of his pension of Rs. 18,656/- and damages of Rs. 9,30,000/- .

THE complaint is resisted by the respondent by contending inter-alia that the Accountant General has released the commuted value of pension of the complainant on 6.1.1987 and the same was routed through the District Treasury, Pension Payment Treasury, Bangalore to the respondent''s bank at Rajajinagar, Bangalore; that the respondent does not admit that it was to be credited to the account of the complainant; that as the complainant did not come and execute the receipt and did not produce his pension payment order for making an entry, the said amount was not credited to his account; that as per the AG''s letter Rs. 326/- p.m. was deducted out of his pension; that the complainant had to contact Treasury Officer for collecting the payment of commuted value of his pension; that the complaint is barred by time as the complainant did not take any action on or before 6.1.1990; that the treasury bill has become stale since no payment of the amount as per the said bill was made; that the claim made by the complainant is not tenable; that the complainant is not entitled to any damages either general or special and that this complaint cannot be entertained by this Commission. Mr. M.N. Nayak, learned Counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the respondent bank is getting some commission from the Government for doing the treasury work in the matter of disbursement of pension of the complainant. Hence, it is clear that the Government has hired the services of the respondent bank for consideration for disbursing the pension of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant who is the beneficiary of that services can be said to be a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is also not disputed that the pension of the complainant is being credited to the S.B. Account of the complainant in the Rajajinagar Branch of the Respondent''s bank and so the complaint is maintainable.

It is not disputed that by the letter dated 6.1.1987, the Accountant General, Karnataka, had sanctioned the payment of Rs. 44,675.04 being the commuted value of Rs. 326/- out of the pension of Rs. 978/- p.m. granted to the complainant. The District Treasury Officer forwarded the said letter to the Rajajinagar branch of the Respondent''s bank, obviously, for the purpose of crediting the said amount to the S.B. Account of the complainant. It is also not disputed that the bank has not credited the said amount, so far to the S.B. Account of the complainant. The bank also, has not informed the complainant the reason for not crediting the said amount to his S.B. Account. Hence, the question of limitation does not arise in this case. It is the admitted that the deduction of commuted portion of the pension of Rs. 326/- was made by the Rajajinagar branch of the Respondent''s bank from 1.2.1987 onwards. When the commuted value of the pension had not been paid to the complainant by crediting it to his account, the bank was not justified in reducing his pension. Under the circumstances, we think it proper to direct the Respondent bank to credit the deducted portion of the pension of Rs. 326/- p.m. from February 1987 together with interest at 5% per annum compounded according to rules and also to credit the commuted portion of the amount of pension of Rs. 44,675.04p. to the S.B. Account of the complainant on or before 20.7.1991. Apart '' from the said reliefs, the complainant is not entitled to the imaginery damages claimed by him.

IN the result, the respondent bank is directed to credit the commuted portion of the pension of Rs. 44,675.04p and the deducted pension of Rs. 326/- p.m. from February, 1987 till the date of payment together with interest at the rate of 5% p.a. compounded according to rules on or before 20.7.1991. The respondent is also directed to pay costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant before that date. The respondent is at liberty to reduce the pension by the commuted portion from the date the commuted value of the pension is credited to the account of the complainant. Appeal allowed.