Delhi

East Delhi

CC/182/2016

NARENDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

02 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.182/2016

 

	Narender Kumar Gupta R/o 359/6, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.	….Complainant
Versus
	STATE BANK OF INDIA Through its Chief Manager, C-61, Anand Vihar Branch, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092.	……OP1
	The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Pension & Provident Fund & Gratuity Department, 8th Floor, C-Block, 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.	……OP2
	The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.	……OP3

 

Date of Institution	:	13.04.2016
Judgment Reserved on	:	24.02.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	02.03.2023

               

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGEMENT  

1. By this order the Commission would dispose off the complaint of the complainant with respect to deficiency in service on the part of OP with respect to debiting his bank account for an amount of Rs.47,350/- stating that it was an over payment in his bank account towards Provident Fund Account. 
2. Before coming to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to mention that complainant originally filed complaint against OP1 but when facts with respect to jurisdiction was raised he filed an application adding two more OPs and as such the cause title shows the name of all the three OPs as per amended Memo of Parties  which was filed by complainant on 28.07.2016.     
3. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he is a retired official of the State Bank of India and at the time of his retirement he was given certain retiral benefits including Gratuity, Pension and Provident Fund and present matter pertains to his Provident Fund only.  He further submitted that he deposited all the amount in his State Bank of India account having branch at Anand Vihar, but all of a sudden on 23.12.2014 the said pension account of the complainant was debited for an amount of Rs.12,000/- and he went to the bank (OP1) and enquired about this and he was informed that the debit of Rs.12,000/- has been made by the OP2 and subsequently he was informed that this deduction is on account of excess payment in the Provident Fund Account of Rs.47,350/- which was being recovered from him in four installments and it is submitted that deduction of Rs.47,350/- is as follows:

1. Rs.12,000/- on 22.12.2014
2. Rs.12,000/- on 31.01.2015
3. Rs.12,000/- on 25.02.2015
4. Rs.11,350/- on 24.04.2015

and after mentioning so many circulars and correspondence it is stated that he is a Consumer under Consumer Protection Act and OP could not had deducted this amount once given and therefore it is prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation along with refund of Rs.47,350/- with interest and litigation charges.      

4. OP has filed Written Statement taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable as complainant has not come to Commission with clean hands, he has suppressed material facts, complaint is false, malfafide and without any substance, this Forum does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as complainant was never a consumer of OP rather was an Ex-employee of the OP1 and he is bound by the State Bank Of India Employees Provident Fund Rules and amount of the Provident Fund payable/paid to him has been in accordance with the said rules along with the applicable rules with respect of rate of interest.  It is submitted that the rate of interest for the year 2011-12 was 8.25%  and not 9.5% but while calculating the retirement benefits, which process generally starts 2-3 months prior to retirement and meanwhile in the month of March, 2012 the rate with respect to Provident Fund was changed from 9.5% to 8.25%  and on account of this fact he was given extra payment of Rs.47,350/- which amount has to be recovered from the complainant on account of the State Bank Of India Employees Provident Fund Rules and therefore nothing wrong has been done by the OP while deducting this amount. 
5. It is further submitted that the said rules has to be within the knowledge of the complainant and even otherwise have been conveyed/ communicated before deducting the amount and since the payment was Rs.47,350/- the whole amount was not deducted in one go rather it was deducted @ Rs.12,000/- per month and finally it was debited by Rs.11,350/- and therefore, complaint is not maintainable.  The said reduction was as per the norms and the complainant is trying to take the benefit of not furnishing the indemnity bond/ missing indemnity bond and even in that scenario he is bound by the State Bank of India  Provident Fund Rules and therefore complaint of the complainant is dismissed. 
6. Rejoinder was filed and the contents of preliminary objections were denied and contents of complainant were reiterated.  The pleadings of both the parties are quite extensive and various facts which are not germane to the final disposal are not mentioned herein as first  of all the controversy with respect to the jurisdiction of this Commission has to be gone into i.e. whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act or not.  The Complaint has been filed by the complainant against his own bank to which he was an employee earlier and admittedly he is not paying any service charges to the OP even otherwise there is an employee -employer relationship in between the parties with respect to the Provident Fund. 
7. Further, in the Kondareddygari Adinarayanareddy V/s State Bank of Hyderabad and Anr., it was inter alia held by the Hon’ble National Commission: 

“That the issue related to the entire gamut of terminal benefits as a whole, including provident fund (bank contribution) and gratuity, has been the subject-matter of adjudication by the competent services tribunal or civil court.  Selectively segregating one particular benefit and taking it to the consumer protection is neither desirable nor tenable or sustainable”.       

8. Keeping in view both the views, the complainant does not appear to be a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act and is covered under the said judgment and therefore the complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed.        

 

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room 

Announced on 02.03.2023