STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR THROUGH ASST. MANAGER vs PRAKASH DEVI & ANR.

The complainant/respondent was getting a family pension from the Government after the death of her husband who was a Government employee. The pension was being granted in terms of a PPO issued by the Govt. of Rajasthan. The task of crediting the pension to the account of the complainant was entrusted by the Government to the petitioner Bank. The complainant duly opened a pension account with the petitioner Bank and was paid pension till April 2004. Thereafter the pension was not credited to her account on the ground that the Pension Payment Order (PPO) had been misplaced in the record of the petitioner Bank. Pursuant to an audit report, the amount of Rs.68,680/- which had been paid as pension to her for the period from September 1998 to April 2004 was also deducted from her salary. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking arrears of pension with interest as well as payment of Rs.68,680/- which had bene deducted from her salary along with interest etc.

The petitioner Bank resisted the complaint primarily on the ground that since PPO was not available in the pension record of the complainant, a letter was sent by them on 15.12.2007 to the Treasury Officer for issuing a duplicate PPO. It was during the pendency of the said request before the Treasury Officer that an audit inspection was carried out for the year 2004-2005, which found the payment of pension to be irregular, the pension paid for the period from September 1998 to April 2004 was recovered. The petitioner Bank also took two preliminary objections, the first being that the complainant was not a consumer and secondly, the complaint was barred by limitation.

The District Forum vide its order dated 10.4.2015 directed the petitioner Bank to deposit the deduced amount in the pension account of the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deduction. It was further directed to deposit the pension in her account from the date on which it was stopped along with interest @ 9% p.a. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner Bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 28.1.2016, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner Bank is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

As regards the plea of limitation, as rightly held by the State Commission, since the pension was to be credited to the account of the complainant regularly on a monthly basis, the cause of action which accrued to the complainant on account of the petitioner Bank stopping crediting the pension in her account was a recurring cause of action. Therefore, the complaint cannot be said to be a barred by limitation.

There is no merit in the plea that the complainant is not a consumer of the petitioner Bank. The consideration for the services rendered by the petitioner to the pensioners is paid by the concerned State Government and being beneficiary of the said services, the complainant is a consumer of the petitioner Bank as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

On merits, a perusal of the reply filed before the District Forum clearly shows that it was the petitioner Bank which lost/misplaced the PPO and having lost the documents, it chose to stop crediting the pension to the account of the complainant instead of itself approaching the pension office and obtaining a duplicate PPO at its own responsibility. Merely writing a letter to the Treasury Officer after three years, was not sufficient. Since the petitioner Bank had been crediting pension in the account of the complainant prior to April 2004, it ought to have continued to credit the pension on the same basis till it was able to obtain a duplicate PPO from the Treasury Officer. The complainant cannot be allowed to suffer on account of the lapse of the petitioner Bank in misplacing or losing the PPO, which the State Government had issued, for the purpose of payment of pension to the complainant.

Therefore, the petitioner Bank was clearly deficient in rendering services to the complainant. Since the deduction from the salary of the complainant came to be made solely on account of the lapse of the petitioner Bank, it is for the petitioner Bank to refund the amount which was deducted from the salary of the complainant. Of course, it would be open to the petitioner Bank to claim that amount from the Government after satisfying it that the complainant being entitled to deduction, it was rightly credited in her account and, therefore, deduction from the salary of the complainant was not justified.

As far as arrears of pension are concerned, the petitioner Bank was under an obligation to credit the same on a regular basis. By not doing so, the petitioner Bank deprived the complainant from use of the pension amount which rightfully belonged to her. Therefore, the direction for payment of interest is eminently justified in this case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in fact they had not lost the PPO and it was wrongly stated so in the reply filed before the District Forum. She further states that the factual position was later clarified in the appeal filed before the State Commission. However, no such plea can be allowed to be taken at this stage nor it could have been taken in the appeal since such a plea would be contrary to the admission made by the petitioner Bank in its reply filed before the District Forum.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition and it is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. It is made clear that after making payment to the complainant in terms of the orders of the Fora below, the petitioner Bank would be entitled to claim the said amount from the concerned State Government in accordance with law.