SURESH KUMAR GUPTA vs GULAB DEVI

THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant-respondent (an official of the P.N.B. Branch Office, Madhubani), against the order dated 5.11.1998 passed by the District Forum, Madhubani in Consumer Case No. 128/1998. 1. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent-complainant filed a complaint case before the District Forum, Madhubani on 1.9.1998 against the appellant and other officials of the P.N.B. vide Consumer Case No. 128/1998. The contention of the complainant was that she was widow of late Krishnadeo Singh, a freedom fighter. During the pendency of his claim for pension he died on 14.8.1997 whereafter the respondent-complainant was substituted in the place of her husband. After due verification by Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the claim of freedom fighter''s pension was cleared and Ministry of Finance, Government of India sent all the documents including P.P.O. No. MHAFF 980/2003 dated 17.4.1998 to the appellant with the direction to credit the arrears of pension as well as current pension in the respondent''s (complainant''s) Account No. 11756. The allegation of the complainant-respondent is that in spite of this direction, the appellant-O.P. did not credit the amount in her account and also alleged that appellant made a demand of illegal gratification for such payment. She served Pleader''s notice twice to the appellant but to no effect and thereafter she filed the complaint case.

THE appellant-Bank appeared, filed written statement pleading therein the P.P.O. of the complainant mentioned above was received in the Branch Office of the Bank in the last week of April 1998. THE complainant''s P.P.O. was signed by the Asstt. Accounts Officer, Ministry of Finance and his signature was attested by the Senior Accounts Officer of the Finance Ministry. After scrutiny of the file, the specimen signature of the above two Accounts Officers were not available in the Bank. THEreafter O.P. No. 1 wrote two letters dated 13.5.1998 and 29.5.1998 addressed to the Senior Accounts Officer of the Finance Ministry to send attested copies of the specimen signature of both Sri K.K. Bhatti and Sh. D.S. Dhahia, Assistant Accounts Officer and Senior Accounts Officer and to confirm the payment of the arrears of pension to the complainant. When no reply was received, O.P. No. 1 also sent fax message. As per rule vide Annexure-12 the link branch is to satisfy the genuineness of pension papers by tallying the signatures of the authorised signatories with those already on their record and will keep record of all the P.P.O.''s in the Index Register branch-wise and it shall be forwarded to the concerned paying branch. Under this provision the O.P. No. 1 took steps to ascertain the genuineness of the signatures of the above named officers. This made delay in the payment of the pension to the complainant. THErefore, the allegation of the complainant of demanding illegal gratification and purposeful delay in the payment are false and baseless. The complainant has produced before the District Forum letter dated 7.4.1998 of Ministry of Finance, letter of P.A. O/P and M dated 3.3.1998 of Pay and Accounts Office, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and the copy of the legal notices sent to the appellant in support of her contention. The appellant had produced the documents, namely photostat copy of letter No. CPA dated Nil 1998 of Senior Accounts Officer, Ministry of Finance containing specimen signature of D.S. Dhahia, Accounts Officer and photostat copy of letter dated 13.5.1998 of Sri S.N. Trikha, Senior Pay and Accounts Officer and some other letters addressed to the Ministry of Finance and the letter received to the Madhubani Branch, the details of which are mentioned in the impugned order.

The District Forum after considering the entire materials on record held that allegation of the complainant is justified. There was deficiency in the service on the part of the appellant and ordered that appellant-O.P. should make payment of arrear pension as per P.P.O. with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of commencement of pension till the date of payment and also allowed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs. 200/-.

THE main contention of the appellant is that Bank acts as an agency of the Government of India in the payment of pension and for that it does not realise any service charge. THE contention of the appellant is that all the papers relating to the P.P.O. were produced before him by the concerned Clerk of the Bank on 8.5.1998. Since the P.P.O. was issued under the signature of Sri D.S. Dhahia, Assistant Accounts Officer, Ministry of Finance whose signature was attested by Sri K.K. Bhatti, Senior Accounts Officer of the same department, the appellant searched for the specimen signature in the record but the same was not available. THErefore, the appellant wrote to Senior Accounts Officer, Ministry of Finance requesting to send the attested specimen signature of Sri K.K. Bhatti and Sri D.S. Dhahia and also to confirm the payment of arrear of pension. THE appellant failed to get any reply. THEreafter a Fax message was sent. Such confirmation is essential as per Bank Accounting Rules. THEre was no specific direction for payment of arrear pension in the P.P.O. of the complainant hence the appellant thought it proper to confirm about such payment and, therefore, letter was written to the Ministry of Finance. THEre was no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant nor there was any demand of illegal gratification as alleged. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant by filing supplementary affidavit at the time of hearing of the appeal dated 24.1.2001 stating therein that the arrear of pension of the respondent have long ago been credited to her pension account vide Annexure-8 to the appeal and as regards the current pension it is being paid to the respondent on a month to month basis since 15.8.1997. The respondent-complainant has withdrawn considerable amount from her pension account as is clear from the latest statement of accounts of the respondent vide Annexure-2. It was further contended that the date of commencement of arrears of pension as per the P.P.O. is 25.7.1981 whereas the pension payment order of the respondent was communicated to the appellant (Bank) by the Central Pension Accounts Officer, Ministry of Finance, Government of India for the first time by letter dated 7.4.1998 which was received in the Bank in the month of April, 1998. Therefore, the delay in the payment of the arrear was not due to laches on the part of the appellant. Hence the appellant is not entitled to pay the interest on the payment of the arrears of pension.

WE have perused the P.P.O. of the complainant issued by the Ministry of Finance which mentions that respondent-complainant is entitled to get pension since 15.7.1981. Therefore, the Bank is entitled to pay the arrears of pension to the complainant from this date. The Bank has received the P.P.O. from the Ministry of Finance in the last week of April, 1998 which is clear from the letter produced before the District Forum. In the circumstances, we are of the view that appellant (Bank) was not at fault in not making the arrears of payment which was due since 15.7.1981. Therefore, the Bank was not entitled to pay the interest at the rate of 18% since the date of payment of pension as ordered by the District Forum. This part of the order of the District Forum is modified. The Bank is directed to make payment of the arrears of the pension since 15.7.1981 but the complainant will not be entitled for interest on this amount from the Bank because we have not found any deficiency in the service on the part of the Bank in delayed payment because the letter was received in the Bank in the month of April 1998 only. It is admitted fact that current pension is already paid and credited in the account of the complainant. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part with the above modification. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal partly allowed.